General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Calories needed vs fat storage Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
2007-07-10 9:45 AM

User image

New user
14

Jonesboro, Arkansas
Subject: Calories needed vs fat storage
I started a very low calorie diet last October at 355 pounds. I started training for a December 5 K by walking. This weekend I will compete in my second triathlon and first olympic distance event after losing over 120 pounds and still going. I have really had a tough time balancing calories for workouts and being healthy with limiting calories for weight loss. I asked my doctor and he basically told me I had plenty of reserve and not to worry about it too much, but that was 100 pounds ago. I was wondering do you really need less calories to workout the more fat you have? I guess it would make sense that if you have it in storage you will use it first.

I love this lifestyle and all the new friends and experiances that have come with it and look forward to getting a little more weight off and continuing along this journey. My golf game sucks now, but I am enjoying life much more. Sorry to ramble, just wondering about thoughts on the calorie thing verses fat storage.


2007-07-10 10:48 AM
in reply to: #878861

User image

Sensei
Sin City
Subject: RE: Calories needed vs fat storage
I'm no MD, but this is what I understand:

As we all know, we need to burn more than we take in to lose weight. However, if you reduce calories too much (under 1200 per day I understand for men) metabolism shuts down to a crawl and your body will start to consume muscle to survive. This is NOT the kind of weight loss you would want - especially as an athlete.

This is how we get our energy (in two different ways)

Carbohydrates ? glucose ? pyruvate ? acetyl-CoA
OR
Lipids (fat) ? fatty acids + glycerol ? acetyl-CoA

No where from stored fat do you get the essential nutrients your body needs - it is JUST an energy source.

SO, you need to eat at least 1200 calories a day to keep your body from consuming itself, but I would not recomend less than 1500 or 2000 - especially since you are training and active. Burn more than that and you lose weight. I think it is completly independant of your total fat stored. Now, that may change if you get to a point where you have 15% body fat (I'm still working on that!) - then you need to consume far MORE calories because you don't have the reserves to tap into.

BTW - I heard that 500 unused calories = 1 lb of fat stored. Something to consider if your looking at the second piece of cheesecake!

Sounds like you are doing great anyway - I would just keep doing what your doing - good luck and congrats!

2007-07-10 11:51 AM
in reply to: #878861

User image

Champion
19812
50005000500020002000500100100100
MA
Subject: RE: Calories needed vs fat storage

Once I started tri training my weight loss slowed. I lost 60 pounds first year of losing most in the first half when I just walked for exercise and have lost 30 in the next 3 years.

I ate to few carbs to have quality workouts. I had to add more in to be able to train well. It is a balance and it hard to figure out.

I have read the safe way to lose is only 1-2 pounds a week which is a 500-1000 calorie a day deficet. If you are losing more it probably is hampering your workouts.

The other thing that has helped me is to drink Gatorade while doing 1.25+ hour workouts even though at first it was hard for me to take in calories while working out because I saw it as a negative calorie thing. Now I see dieting doesn't occur at workouts or post workout recovery food, but other times during the day.

Congrats on turning your life around and making HUGE strides...wow it is so impressive! 

 

2007-07-10 10:50 PM
in reply to: #879032

User image

Veteran
206
100100
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Subject: RE: Calories needed vs fat storage
Aikidoman - 2007-07-10 10:48 AM


BTW - I heard that 500 unused calories = 1 lb of fat stored. Something to consider if your looking at the second piece of cheesecake!




I don't know how that works out. As I've always understood it 3500 calories = 1 lb, or at least that is the caloric deficit needed for your body to lose one pound of fat. The rest of the info falls in line with what I've heard though.
2007-07-11 5:40 AM
in reply to: #880453

User image

Master
1718
1000500100100
Loughborough, England
Subject: RE: Calories needed vs fat storage

kaitlinrose - 2007-07-11 4:50 AM
Aikidoman - 2007-07-10 10:48 AM BTW - I heard that 500 unused calories = 1 lb of fat stored. Something to consider if your looking at the second piece of cheesecake!
I don't know how that works out. As I've always understood it 3500 calories = 1 lb, or at least that is the caloric deficit needed for your body to lose one pound of fat. The rest of the info falls in line with what I've heard though.

Yep, 3500 calories = 1lb fat.

So, to answer your question shump, no you don't need more calories the less fat you have.  Think about this - a 150lb person at 10%BF has 15 lb of fat.  15lb of fat can be converted into 52,500 calories.  So you can see that even at very low BF% you still have more than enough fat to provide the calories needed.

Like Cathly said aim for 1-2 lb loss a week and don't forget that when you are training you can still eat quite a lot but still loose weight.  Anyway, I'm not sure you need advice in that area as you've done so well so far!

2007-07-11 9:10 AM
in reply to: #878861

User image

New user
14

Jonesboro, Arkansas
Subject: RE: Calories needed vs fat storage
I need all the advice I can get, I appreciate all the input. My body has changed and is changing so much, I just assume the right things to do must change some also in order to fuel it.


New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Calories needed vs fat storage Rss Feed