Disappointed with how LITTLE calories triathlon training burns. (Page 4)

Deb, I still think the 3 hours of working out a day is working against you.

Take a look at www.bodyrecomposition.com

It has some good articles about weight loss, and more specifically FAT loss.

All calories consumed are not exactly the same - when it comes to being useful for exercising. For example, eating a stick of butter is not likely to provide the same useful fuel as eating a plate of pasta. Using the wrong fuel source may make it much more difficult to complete exercise in the most efficient manner for burning calories.

For a person your current size - swimming, biking and running at such slow paces isn't going to help you much - UNLESS you greatly increase the time spent doing these activities. How long a period of time do you spend swimming at 4:00/100 meters, biking at 10 miles/hour, etc? It sounds like you need some serious coaching as at your size to be going that slow seems to indicate gross inefficiencies in your technique.

I was once overweight and I remember counting calories like you are doing. I recall reaching a plateau and wondering why I wasn't continuing to lose weight. My solution at the time was to increase my exercise. I went from biking 40-50 miles/week, up to 150-200 miles/week - while maintaining the same caloric intake. The plateau was busted and I reached my goal. I made sure my diet was made up of calories that would support my fueling needs, i.e. heavy on carbs, low on fat. Conversely I've seen people on things like the Atkins diet struggle to increase exercise levels. So in that sense, you've got to make sure your diet and your exercise are working together.

Since those overweight days I've changed my eating habits and overall lifestyle. Fast food places with their emphasis on high fat foods and empty calorie soda are things I only do a few times a year, not a few times a week or more. I cook most of my food from whole sources, not from packaged/processed sources.

In the past several years what has worked extremely well for me is daily running. Since I started this my weight has reduced even more, and that has allowed me to run more and faster - although the vast majority of my running is done at an easy pace.

It all matters. Number of calories consumed, type of calories, length of exercise, intensity of exercise, overall volume, etc., are all interconnected. You can lose weight VERY SLOWLY by just focusing on one thing, but when you pay attention to the entire gamut you'll lose much more quickly. Plus, don't expect to be able to it all and maintain an easy comfort level.

Once again I posted general ideas.  I appologize if they do not fit into your view (or others) view of things.   The fact is they are not misconceptions or half truths.   The point of my post was just to help the OP with some ideas  that I had not seen discussed.  I mentioned that there were good ideas already posted.  (I had not read every word of the topic either.)  Her curiousity was with calories and exercise.  

1.  Yes, there are test out there that are good estimations of calories (gas exchange, etc).   I was just trying to point out that getting EXACT calories is not an easy or common process.  This way the OP might feel better that something a machine at the gym is telling her, may not be EXACT.  

2. I believe (and no one is forcing you to) that the further someone gets from their genetically programed medium, the harder it is to maintain.   I will never be a body builder.  The more muscle I try to gain the harder it gets to maintain that amount of muscle.  Gains and losses with muscle or fat are not linear.   There is a reason that two people the same weight doing the exact same workout at the exact same level for the exact same amount of time and consuming the exact same calories will NOT lose the same exact amount of fat.   Not everyone is born to be the same size or with the same speed metabolism or with the same genetic programming for how their body stores or uses fat. 

3. This one I should have clarified more I guess (didnt know there were so many Monday Morning QBs here) so you get slight credit.   Yes you can use more fat calories in 30 minutes at 75% max than at 30 min at 50% max.   HOWEVER, it has been my experience, that people trying to lose weight can spend a lot more time 5-6 days a week, or an hour vs 30 min or even mutiple workouts per day at 50% with fewer risks of injury or muscle fatigue than you can at 75% max.  So, when you can spend 600 minutes a week at 50% burning lets say 4 fat kcal/min vs 300 min at 6 fat kcal/min then you have burned an extra 600 kcal/ week by working at a lighter pace. 

Yes, it can be done other ways, but that is an idea that can help some people.   Even though it is something I prefer for the unfit individual, it can apply to some others as well.   Typically longer workouts as I stated, tend to start using more fat kcals as the workout goes on because your muscles/blood will only store a certain amount of carbs.   If you are at a higher pace, and your body uses up all the carbs and you 'bonk' then the workout is pretty much over for most people.  I have never had anyone 'bonk' at 50% max (because it would likely take a long time for most people), but have had people 'bonk' at 75%. 

Does that help clarify anything for you?  People will stop posting if people constantly question them, and the OP might not get some info that could help them.

I've been using the following:

run: 1cal/kg/km

bike: 20cal/km

swim: 25cal/100m

Seems to be jiving with my cal deficit on MyPlate cal counter. The automated ones they were spitting out were insane for me (1200 for a 60 min bike etc)

This is what I use. But in terms of miles, yds and miles again. I have no clue how accurate it is.

I figure 100 calories per mile of running. 30 calories per mile of cycling and 100 calories per 400 yds swam. I would think it all evens out. Most days I burn between 400-1200 calories. In the height of training I know I am not eating enough. 

It has taken me over 5 years to get to my "almost" ideal weight. I would love to drop 5 more pounds. It takes time and effort and patience. I would rather go slowly and keep it off than lose it quick and gain it back. 5 years later I am almost here. Almost....if you are looking for a quick fix, training for a triathlon is not the answer.

I go back and forth between wanting 500 and 1000.  There's a formula to calculate when your body shifts from burning fat to catabolizing muscle.  This is the only formula I've ever seen.

They say you can oxidize 31 calories per day per lb of fat, i.e. you can have that much deficit without adverse consequences.  I estimate myself to be at 30% body fat (and have a handheld device that says around 27%).  So at 142 lbs that's 42.6 lbs of fat so that's 1320.6 in deficit, so I shouldn't have something larger than that.  That ties it in to both body fat and pounds.

Is this an average day in terms of working out?  If your spin class is an hour, then a total of 3.75 hours a day?

You might be doing too much and your body is fighting you back by trying to keep the weight on.  You might need to take a look at your training schedule and nutrition needs and find a balance.  AND get more rest! 

You also mentioned you work at night?  That might complicate the equation as well.

You might be consuming too many calories based on your fitness level (1800) and not giving your body a chance to burn what it has on board.  I'm 5'8", training approximately 2 hours a day most days, and hover around 1,500 calories.

AND GET MORE REST!

I have been trying to lost the last 15-20 pounds for long time.  I look ok , I'm 5.7. and wear size 6-8, but my goal is to wear size 4.    For a while I ate 1200 calories and lost nothing.  I got frustrated with watching calories and started eating more and more.  Sometimes I eat 3000, 3500 calories  a day sometimes 2000 and I do not gain any weight.  The calories theory doesnot always work.

http://calorieneedscalculator.com/index.html

this will help determine needs based on output. 

Sometimes no information is better than bad information.  Bad information is often propagated and accepted as truth, particularly if it is appealing.  It is nothing personal and I apologize if I've offended you as it was not my intent.

A lifelong close friend is an internist, fellowship trained in sports medicine at Duke University with an MS in human physiology.  He is also an endurance athlete who comes from morbidly obese parents.  My educational background includes degrees in biology and chemistry.  We've had countless discussions about just this topic as he has advised me throughout my journey from obese to fit.  In both general and specific terms, the information he has shared differs significantly from that which you've offered here, most specifically in your original post.  Most of those differences have been highlighted by other members here already.

OP - Sorry for the derail.

According to the above friend/advisor, your basal metabolic rate is a 10x factor of your body weight, barring an underlying metabolic disorder, based on his experience in the lab.  If memory serves, that would put your basic caloric needs in the 1400kcal /day range at circa 140lbs.  I believe you said you eat around 1600 cals/day.  I would cut back to 1300 and give it a month. 

The single best piece of advice he gave me early on was:  "You diet for weightloss and exercise for fitness."  He was telling me that at moderate levels to ignore the net-net of factoring in calories burned.  Of course this will not apply to many of the folks here who are living with HIM and IM plans as those expenditures are on a different plane.

At 1600 calories per day I think you may be overeating.  I'm about 215 lbs and my calorie per day target is 1800 for weightloss.  (target given to me by my sports nutritionist) and that's at a higher level of training.  Your weightloss at 1-2lbs a week is at the margins of your diet.

Deb, I have to agree with the above comments about goals and plans.

However, I am working on the assumption you want to feel good about your weight and have the energy to have some fun with your fitness.

As the previous poster mentioned, you may be overthinking it.

However, with the rough estimates you gave, I would think 1800 would be OK. However, if your cardio is really intense-like and RPE of 7 or higher- you may still be at too high a deficit.

On the other hand, if you are able to chat while you are doing the cardio, you may be OK.

I would still say you need to get more rest and work in recovery days.

Remember I work out 2-4 hours a day, so even at 2000 calories I'm not at a surplus

I'm going to go off 1380 calories (at 138.5 right now) with a 500 deficit, so 800 + working out, should come out to about 1600 eaten a day with the 500 deficit since I burn around 800 calories a day working out.

I went back and scanned through some of your posts.  I'm not convinced you are burning 800 calories working out.  At your size that is roughly equivalent to running (not walking, walk-running) 8 miles a day.  At a beginners pace of say 4mph, that's a 2 hour run.  While you may be spending 2-4 hours a day in your workout clothes I'm not at all convinced that you are doing the equivalent of 2 solid hours of running based on the information you provided in this thread and another where you listed your triathlon training at a 6 mile ride and a 1.9 mile walk/run and some swimming.

Again, break this mentality that the body bugg has put you in of factoring in calories burned in exercise to calculate some deficit.  For one thing, your body bugg is not accurate.  If it were, sports medicine and exercise physiology labs all over the counrty would be utilizing them.  Diet, then exercise.  Consider them unrelated because in my opinion you are:

1.  Overestimating the calories you should be eating.

2.  Possibly underestimating the calories you ARE eating.

3.  Overestimating the calories you are burning working out.

The thread is titled "Disappointed in how LITTLE calories triathlon training burns".  That is because you aren't doing very much of it though you may be spending a lot of time engaged in it.  Increasing your training to the point of 200+ miles cycling and 35+ miles running and 20-30,000 yds swimming per month would reveal how many calories triathlon training burns.

The bottom line is you aren't in a deficit if you aren't losing.  That means you are either eating too much or moving too little.  Its a simple equation.

You've done some solid work in reducing your weight and getting active.  The net of what I'm saying is it may be time for a re-assessment of your methods as a result.

At my age, height and weight - I need appx 1300 calories just to live!!   http://www-users.med.cornell.edu/~spon/picu/calc/beecalc.htm I probably intake around 2200 - 2600 depending on my ice cream intake  

I"m 48, 5'5'' and appx 135 (normal size and some muscles). Remember - muscles need and burn more calories so if you starve yourself, you will lose muscle as your body basically cannabalises itself and remember your heart is a muscle too. www.Fitday.com is a great resource for figuring out how many calories you actually eat and estimating how much you're burning. As a side note, I've 'redistributed my weight since doing tri training. I lost a little weight but mostly turned fat into muscle and thus lost INCHES in my hips/thighs. So eat healthy, train smart and it will all fall into place!