login
Calories burned not equal to weight loss?
-
No new posts
 2010-04-29 11:48 AM |
Elite  5316   Alturas, California |  Subject: Calories burned not equal to weight loss?Alrighty I have an IM coming up and thought the training would just take care of that 10-15 pounds I wanted to drop for race day. Not so. According to the standard info I am burning 1500 calories per day in my workouts, more on Saturday and Sunday. My calorie intake had been 300, 100, 400, 100, 750, 100 (1750) (for breakfast, snack, lunch, snack dinner snack). Now... I was thinking that 1750 calries in and - 1500 worked out= 250 calories would result in weight loss. Nope. I guess I only need 250 calories to do my desk job and breath all day. New plan 300, 400, 750 = 1450 - 1500 = - 50 calories. So at the net decrease in calories of 300 per day I am finally creeping down 1 pound this week. It simply amazes me that I have to drop my calories in below my calories burned only from exercize in order to lose any weight. To me this is a really low level of food intake and it doesn't really make sense as far as the math goes. Shouldn't I burn something throughtout the day just walking around and such? Anyway 8 weeks to lose 9 pounds to get me where I want to be for race day. 1 pound per week doesn't seem too radical to me, but boy it hurts trying to get rid of it. My wife made pizza on Tuesday and stuffed mushrooms lastnight... the agony. Eating only 1 or 2 small slices of pizza....so painful, leftover pizza in the fridge.... Who invented this slowing down metabolism thing anyway? So my heart goes out to those of you trying to lose weight as well. It turns out that exercize isn't really the solution for me I have to severly cut back on calorie intake. Question, for those trying to lose weight, what is your daily calories in to calories burned from exercize alone ratio? |
| 2010-04-29 12:40 PM in reply to: #2825707 |
Member 57 KC | Subject: RE: Calories burned not equal to weight loss? Baowolf - 2010-04-29 11:48 AM Alrighty I have an IM coming up and thought the training would just take care of that 10-15 pounds I wanted to drop for race day. Not so. According to the standard info I am burning 1500 calories per day in my workouts, more on Saturday and Sunday. My calorie intake had been 300, 100, 400, 100, 750, 100 (1750) (for breakfast, snack, lunch, snack dinner snack). Now... I was thinking that 1750 calries in and - 1500 worked out= 250 calories would result in weight loss. Nope. I guess I only need 250 calories to do my desk job and breath all day. New plan 300, 400, 750 = 1450 - 1500 = - 50 calories. So at the net decrease in calories of 300 per day I am finally creeping down 1 pound this week. It simply amazes me that I have to drop my calories in below my calories burned only from exercize in order to lose any weight. To me this is a really low level of food intake and it doesn't really make sense as far as the math goes. Shouldn't I burn something throughtout the day just walking around and such? Anyway 8 weeks to lose 9 pounds to get me where I want to be for race day. 1 pound per week doesn't seem too radical to me, but boy it hurts trying to get rid of it. My wife made pizza on Tuesday and stuffed mushrooms lastnight... the agony. Eating only 1 or 2 small slices of pizza....so painful, leftover pizza in the fridge.... Who invented this slowing down metabolism thing anyway? So my heart goes out to those of you trying to lose weight as well. It turns out that exercize isn't really the solution for me I have to severly cut back on calorie intake. Question, for those trying to lose weight, what is your daily calories in to calories burned from exercize alone ratio? How long have you been on that restrictive of a diet? It sounds like you need a three day high-carb re-feed to help reset your Leptin and Cortisol levels. I used to do this for clients in my business (bodybuilders cutting for shows, figure athletes, etc.) If you want more info on this, I'll be happy to help (NO CHARGE, I SWEAR). I see that you're at 154 lbs. I haven't seen pics of you with your shirt off, but I'd guess by looking at your calves and shoulders that you're about 13% bodyfat. If that's accurate, I get you at about 1,350 calories per day if you lay in bed all day and do NOTHING. You should be dropping about 2.5 lbs per week at your current caloric input/output. If you want to discuss it more, let me know. I know your pain!!! Been there, done that. But it's usually an easy fix for people who really train! If you want ot discuss here, that;s fine, or if you're more comfortable you can PM me. Tim |
| 2010-04-29 3:26 PM in reply to: #2825707 |
Expert 1049 Burnaby, BC | Subject: RE: Calories burned not equal to weight loss? How long have you been doing this? Your body should be shutting down because your starving it! Like the other commenter said, you should be burning around 1400 Cals as a base and the workouts add on top. Assuming those Calorie burned numbers are accurate you'd be needing 2900 Cals to maintain your weight and should target 2500 for a reasonable rate of weight loss. |
| 2010-04-29 4:02 PM in reply to: #2825707 |
Elite 3515  Romeoville, Il | Subject: RE: Calories burned not equal to weight loss? First, the others are right. You've put yourself in starvation mode. Literally, it's in a defense mode hanging on to every ounce of fat it can because of the deprivation. 2 Calories a HRM says you burn are not even close usually. I find most HRM's to over estimate calories burned by 2 to 3 times!!! 3. All calories are not the same. Some are harmful to your system and don't burn at the normal rate they are supposed to. Your liver is what metabolizes food. Guess what, your liver is different than mine or the next persons. Everyone's liver reacts differently to all the preservatives and chemicals put in today's food. If you're like me, that means there is a lot of toxicity in your body if your not already eating organic or less acidic foods and drinks. You may have spent years putting toxin's in and it may take some time to get them out. These toxic cells tend to surround fat cells in the form of water. You can't burn those fat cells because they are protected by toxic water. You may need to try and take out acidic foods and drinks from your diet. After a few months of that you'll probabaly start seeing some results. Edited by Meulen 2010-04-29 4:04 PM |
| 2010-04-29 4:07 PM in reply to: #2825707 |
| Subject: RE: Calories burned not equal to weight loss? I think people have got everything else covered, but... whatever you do, don't go all deficit-y like that at the end of your taper. Kind of hard for your body to recover and be ready to race when you're denying it so much. (also in a proper taper you're going to gain a few pounds in water weight as your glycogen replenishes). Your body will be happier with five extra pounds on race day than it will be with you at a goal weight and totally beat up from it. |
| 2010-04-29 4:24 PM in reply to: #2825707 |
Elite 5316 Alturas, California | Subject: RE: Calories burned not equal to weight loss? I'm not really starving myself, my motabolism is painfully slow. At 1750 calories a day working out on average 800 calories a day I lose no weight. If I increase my calorie intake by 300 I gain weight. If I decrease my calorie intake by 300 I lose weight. Exercise it turns out has minimal impact on my weight loss. If I don't exercize I would gain weight on 1750 calories and maintain my weight on 1450 and lose weight at around 1150 calories. Calories burned = 100 calories per mile run at around an 8:30-9:00 mpm pace. Roughly 1 hour of z2-3 running, biking or swimming = 650 calories burned. I am currently 153 pounds 5'9" tall and roughly 11 percent body fat per cheap monitor device thingy. Anyway those are my numbers and observations. My race is in 8 weeks, so I realize I will be putting a pound or two back on during the end of taper week 3, etc. Edited by Baowolf 2010-04-29 4:26 PM |
| 2010-04-29 4:58 PM in reply to: #2825707 |
| Subject: RE: Calories burned not equal to weight loss? Are you weighing and tracking everything? I find that even measuring can be inaccurate (tablespoons can be off by 30%) when compared to weighing food. It's probably more likely that you are miscalculating (as opposed to you having the metabolism of a 120 pound woman). At any rate, you should probably see a Registered Dietitian about it - I ended up doing that last year after having similar issues and it made a world of difference. |
| 2010-04-29 5:31 PM in reply to: #2825707 |
Master 1366 PNW | Subject: RE: Calories burned not equal to weight loss? I'm sure this isn't the only issue, but your calories burned seems high to me. I weigh more than you and I do not burn 650 calories for an hour of z2-3 effort. I know that your burn should be higher than mine just seeing as how you are male, but you may still be overestimating your output. |
| 2010-04-30 7:40 AM in reply to: #2825707 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Calories burned not equal to weight loss? Just ballparking the numbers, it would appear that on days you run and bike your caloric expenditure is in the 1300-1400Cal range and on your swim/run days you are more in the 1000-1100Cal range. As far as starvation mode, I am not an expert on nutrition but everything I've read is even at 50% of your daily requirements you will still lose weight (IIRC for males down to abut 7%BF and then things get a little weird). I would guess that you are underestimating the number of calories you are consuming; as was mentioned, if counting isn't working trying weighing everything. Shane |
| 2010-05-20 12:36 PM in reply to: #2825707 |
Elite 5316 Alturas, California | Subject: RE: Calories burned not equal to weight loss? Update... 150 pounds this morning. So pretty much on track with losing 1 pound per week. 5 weeks to go, 5 pounds to lose. I inched calorie intake up a couple hundred and that resulted in a big stall to weight loss, so I dropped the 200 calories again and got the scale to come down 2 more pounds over 2 weeks. My motabolism is just really that slow. 17 hours of workouts this week may allow me to up the calorie intake slightly, we shall see. Current daily calorie intake is 1650 ish calories. Edited by Baowolf 2010-05-20 12:40 PM |
| 2010-05-20 3:18 PM in reply to: #2825707 |
Member 5 McMinnville, OR | Subject: RE: Calories burned not equal to weight loss? The "Calories in vs. Calories out" issue is always interesting. I don't doubt the science of it, but unknown factors seem to make the calculation very difficult. For most people the average way of measuring intake and output will work, but others take some trail & error to find what works. I'm 6'2" and 263 lbs (down from a peak of 345). For me to lose weight, I have to keep my calorie intake down around 1,800 (which is about 4,000 calories short of my resting metebolic rate per an RMR calculator). I also have to do at least an hour of cardio a day on top of that. I've tried maintaining the exact exercise program and increasing my calories to 2,200 and I maintained my weight for the two weeks I did that. Recently I was traveling for almost 2 months for work, so I didn't get to exercise much, but I maintained my diet strictly to 1,800 - 2,000 calories per day (which is still below my RMR per the "normal person" calculator) and I maintained the same weight for 2 months. I was actually happy with that, as it was the first long business trip I've taken where I didn't gain weight. I've been 100+ lbs overweight for the majority of my life, but have also been unusually active for a person that size. I've also been to various doctors, nutritionalists, etc, and never had much success with the programs/pills/etc. they came up with. I don't know if it's just a slow metabolism or some undetected medical condition. I just know what works for me, and that is a diet and exercise program that would kill most people. Maybe when I get closer to my goal weight I'll be able to switch to a more reasonable diet. -Mike P.S. - This was my first post, so I thought I'd make it a long one. Edited by TheMike 2010-05-20 3:19 PM |
| 2010-05-21 11:20 AM in reply to: #2825707 |
| Regular 132 Artesia, NM | Subject: RE: Calories burned not equal to weight loss? I agree with the slowing metabolism based on personal experience. When i was in my late twenties/early thirties, I could cut back to 1600 cals a day and lose 2 pounds per week like clockwork. Im at a higher workout volume now, carrying more muscle, and at 1800-2000 cals a day average, i lose .5-1 pound a week. If i cut back my food much more than this i feel starved on longer runs. I may cut back on the diet red bull as an experiment. I have read your body reacts to artificial sweeteners the same way as sugar, and it thinks you have a high dose coming. There has been a theory you get a large insulin response, with the expectation of sugar, then there is none, but you go into sugar storage mode. The only thing I really do different now VS late twenties is diet red bull every morning. I was worried because I was never able to really bulk up till after my vasectomy, i feared a testosterone drop, so I insisted on a blood workup. My testosterone was normal for the 24-29 year old range, and high normal. |
| 2010-05-21 2:15 PM in reply to: #2825707 |
Regular 72 Toronto | Subject: RE: Calories burned not equal to weight loss? This might also be a reason to cut the diet Red Bull: Also with regard to obesity and aspartame, the Trocho Study in Barcelona in l998 showed that the formaldehyde converted from the free methyl alcohol accumulates in the cells and damages DNA with most toxicity in the liver but substantial toxicity in the adipose tissue or fat cells. Further a recent epidemiological study by Sharon Fowler at the University of Texas in 2005 linked diet drinks with obesity. In the Congressional Record, Senate, S - 5511, May 7, l985, and part of the protest of the National Soft Drink Assn, now American Beverage, is this Statement:
|
| 2010-05-21 2:26 PM in reply to: #2825707 |
| Regular 132 Artesia, NM | Subject: RE: Calories burned not equal to weight loss? That was one I had not read, the formaldahyde think i thought got debunked, but the showed if the asparatame combo reached a certain temp, it could still break down. I need a healthier source of caffeine, thats for sure. |
| 2010-05-22 7:02 AM in reply to: #2825707 |
Regular 72 Toronto | Subject: RE: Calories burned not equal to weight loss? What about black tea? It only has about 5 mg less caffeine per serving than colas. Black or oolong tea - you could make it iced tea - add some agave nectar for sweetness, and there you go. I'm a coffee addict - so don't think I'm all preachy. I get how hard it is to wean yourself off caffeine sources that you like. Good luck. |
| 2010-05-27 12:53 PM in reply to: #2827009 |
| Regular 110 Toronto | Subject: RE: Calories burned not equal to weight loss? Did you just say 11% body fat????!!!!!! Ummm, you might want to get that checked properly. For a woman, anything under 20% is considered lean and I think you start to get to seriously unhealthy somewhere around 15%. That's shockingly low. Also at 5'9" on a fit frame, where exactly do you plan to lose 10 pounds from? You're already at the low end of healthy weight for someone with as much muscle weight as you presumably have. (145 is the low end, but that would be for someone without much muscle tone....) Cut yourself some slack!!! Also, remember that as you work out you gain muscle which weighs more than fat, so you can be changing your muscle v fat proportions without changing your weight at all. Sounds to me like you are in great shape and you just need to feed the machine to get some serious performance out of it! Good luck!!! |
| 2010-05-30 4:48 AM in reply to: #2886316 |
Pro 4353 Wallingford, PA | Subject: RE: Calories burned not equal to weight loss? FrankieWood - 2010-05-27 1:53 PM Did you just say 11% body fat????!!!!!! Ummm, you might want to get that checked properly. For a woman, anything under 20% is considered lean and I think you start to get to seriously unhealthy somewhere around 15%. That's shockingly low. Also at 5'9" on a fit frame, where exactly do you plan to lose 10 pounds from? You're already at the low end of healthy weight for someone with as much muscle weight as you presumably have. (145 is the low end, but that would be for someone without much muscle tone....) Cut yourself some slack!!! Also, remember that as you work out you gain muscle which weighs more than fat, so you can be changing your muscle v fat proportions without changing your weight at all. Sounds to me like you are in great shape and you just need to feed the machine to get some serious performance out of it! Good luck!!! Just to clarify - OP is a man... |
| 2010-06-16 10:57 AM in reply to: #2825707 |
| Member 28 | Subject: RE: Calories burned not equal to weight loss? New voice, same story. Lots of exercise but NO WEIGHT LOSS!!! Argh! Seems like there is way too much rocket science with my body in my attempts to lose weight. 5'9", 198#. Obtained BMR of 1411 by 20 minutes breathing the VO2 tube. So my BMR is as accurate as you can get. Tracking every portion of food religiously. Weighing food in the kitchen on a postal scale. Body fat about 21-22% (depends on which cheap machine measures.) Went from 4.5 hours of working out per week this winter to 7.5 hours per week since April. No weight change. Went from a 1100 calorie (net) per day during winter training for the HIM Oceanside, to 2000 calorie net in early April. Instant weight gain with feeling of getting "padding." Dropped net daily calorie to 1500 in tandem with increase of exercise to 6 days a week with 7.5 hours per week. Yet no weight loss. I'm trying anything. Already cut out dairy. Already cut out all breads, wheat and refined flour. Looks like I'm going to have to eliminate gluten. And also pursue the blood typing food plan (O positive.) Other than carrying this extra 15-20#'s, I'm healthy. But I don't like seeing a big belly on my athletic frame. HELP!! |
| 2010-07-07 12:03 PM in reply to: #2825707 |
Member 115 West Georgia | Subject: RE: Calories burned not equal to weight loss? everyone is different. I have found that for me, if I dramatically cut my calories, making a huge starving painful deficit for a week, and do weight training and continue the cardio, that i can get some weight loss started. Once it gets going I can begin to slowly add some calories back in and keep up the weight loss. Another very very important thing that can help. NO ALCOHOL. You can figure the calories in just fine but I recently read an article that said studied the effects of 2 vodka with sugar free lemonade. They measured up to a 50% decrease in metabolism from the two drinks. So if you have 200 calories from alcohol and then you slow your metabolism by half, WOW! I know that if I drink a beer or two 3-4 nights a week, I won't lose weight that week. If I go alcohol free, I can drop some serious poundage! |
| 2010-07-14 10:59 AM in reply to: #2825707 |
| 16 | Subject: RE: Calories burned not equal to weight loss? I have a similar story, however, my calorie restriction is not as extreme as yours. I may have to make it so! I pegged my calorie intake at around 1700-1800 as my maintenance. After my workouts, I try to end the day with 700-1000 net caloric intake. I should lose close to 2lbs a week. However, it seems more like I am losing .5-1lb. I will go lower the next two weeks. I have read an article that although metabolism can slow down, it can not offset a huge calorie deficit. I believe the value was around 10-15% slowdown. |
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK