login
Calorie Intake vs. Calorie Burned
-
No new posts
 2005-08-22 8:28 AM |
Veteran  298   West Henrietta, NY |  Subject: Calorie Intake vs. Calorie BurnedOk, I've been slowly losing weight, the strange part is, I'll go for 4-5 weeks where my weight is steady, within +/- 1 or 2 pounds and then I'll have a week where I'll drop 3-4 pounds. This seems to be repeating. Currently I'm at 207lbs and between 19-20% body fat. I generally take in about 2500 calories per day, roughly 40% carbs, 25% protein, and 35% fat. I average 146g of protein per day, 264g of carbs, and 88g of fat per day. According to FitDay, I burn about 2040 calories Basal, 905 for my Lifestyle (choose seated job, though I do move around a bit) and average about 500 caloires per day for my activities/training. My question is, should I be eating more? I'm almost wondering if my metabolism has slowed down because I'm burning about 1000 cal per day than I'm eating. Should I adjust the protein/carb/fat ratio any? I appreciate any advise you all can provide. Thanks, Chris. |
| 2005-08-22 10:15 AM in reply to: #230383 |
Elite 3020  Bay Area, CA | Subject: RE: Calorie Intake vs. Calorie Burned I don't know, my body does this too. So if you look at it week to week it's "Wow" or "Bummer" but month over month it's working out to the recommendation of 1-2 lbs a week. I think some people just lose weight this way. |
| 2005-08-22 3:12 PM in reply to: #230383 |
Master 1210 Saskatchewan | Subject: RE: Calorie Intake vs. Calorie Burned I'd suggest keeping the same calorie range if it has worked for you in the past, but eat more protein, 40% carbs, 30-40% protein, 20-30% fat. I stumbled upon this today from Active.com... Weight loss for athletes: Eat less or exercise more? By Joe Friel, August 12, 2005 Around the time of the Tour de France, there are often questions about how an athlete should go about losing weight in order to climb better. There's little doubt that being lighter means climbing faster. Pro cyclists who contend for the yellow jersey, the polka dot jersey or who need to support their team leader in the Alps and Pyrenees try to be lean by the time the terrain turns upward. Weight and performance The best climbers are generally less than two pounds of body weight for every inch of height (divide your weight in pounds by your height in inches to find this number). It's rare to find a rider in the pro peloton at 2.5 pounds per inch or greater. A lot of them who are not climbing specialists are around 2.1 to 2.2. The latest average I have for the TdF field shows an average of 2.151 pounds per inch (thanks to Gregory Byerline for providing that data). Every pound of excess fat shaved from your body saves you about three watts in a climb. In running it's something like two seconds per mile per excess pound in a race. For most endurance athletes, a one-point shift in weight-to-height ratio means about five percent loss of weight -- around a seven- to nine-pound loss of love handles. That can be done safely over a two-month period if there's a big A-race with lots of climbing or the need to run faster on the calendar a couple of months from now. Study: Eat less vs. exercise more How is it best for an athlete to lose weight? Unfortunately, there have been few studies of serious athletes that looked at this question. One group of researchers, however, has examined the issue in an interesting way. They compared eating less to exercising more to see which was more effective in dropping excess body fat. They had six endurance-trained men create a 1,000-calorie-per-day deficit for seven days by either exercising more while maintaining their caloric intake, or by eating less while keeping exercise the same. With 1,000 calories of increased exercise daily -- comparable to running an additional eight miles or so each day -- the men averaged 1.67 pounds of weight loss in a week. The subjects eating 1,000 fewer calories each day lost 4.75 pounds on average for the week. So, according to this study, the old adage that "a calorie is a calorie" doesn't hold true. At least in the short term, restricting food intake appears to have a greater return on the scales than does increasing training workload. Notice that I said "on the scales." The reduced-food-intake group in this study unfortunately lost a greater percentage of muscle mass than did the increased-exercise group. That is an ineffective way to lose weight. If the scales show you're lighter, but you have less muscle to create power, the trade-off isn't a good one. How can you reduce calories yet maintain muscle mass? Unfortunately, that question hasn't been answered for athletes, but it has been for sedentary women. Perhaps the conclusions are still applicable to athletes. More protein, less muscle loss In 1994, Italian researchers had 25 women eat only 800 calories a day for 21 days. Ten ate a relatively high-protein and low-carbohydrate diet. Fifteen ate a low-protein and high-carbohydrate diet. Both were restricted to 20 percent of calories from fat. The two groups lost similar amounts of weight, but there was a significantly greater loss of muscle on the high-carbohydrate, low-protein diet. It appears that when calories are reduced to lose weight, which is more effective than increasing training workload, the protein content of the diet must be kept at near normal levels. This, of course, assumes that you're eating adequate protein before starting the diet, which many athletes aren't. When training hard, a quality source of protein should be included in every meal, especially when trying to lose weight. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Friel is president and founder of Ultrafit Associates and author of the Training Bible book series. For more information on training, racing and coaching go to www.Ultrafit.com. |
| 2005-08-24 10:51 AM in reply to: #230383 |
Veteran 172 Memphis, TN | Subject: RE: Calorie Intake vs. Calorie Burned i seem to be in the same pattern myself although I've really just hit my first plateau. on fitday i'm avg. about 3500 cal/day burned and around 2600 consumed. i've been around 254 for at least 2 weeks. i'm not frustrated..just curious why this is going on. i was dropping about 3 lbs/week for about the first month and it just stopped. |
| 2005-08-24 2:43 PM in reply to: #230383 |
Expert 623 Wye Mills, MD | Subject: RE: Calorie Intake vs. Calorie Burned A few random thoughts: Take calorie counters with a grain of salt. Calories burned is very individual, and categorizing activities by speed (bicycling, swimming) can be very misleading - it leaves out equipment and efficiency. Another example is running hills - slow, not many miles, but lots of cals burned. Add sleep to your FitDay activities - a tip given to me last week on BT. It will lower your lifestyle calories burned. Pay attention to the tide and not the waves. |
| 2005-08-24 3:20 PM in reply to: #230383 |
Extreme Veteran 370 Mesa AZ | Subject: RE: Calorie Intake vs. Calorie Burned Also there are many things that can impact your weight on any given day. Salt intake is the biggest one that is universal, women have hormonal changes over the month and everyone has hydration issues as well. If it averages out about right, then it's fine. I also consider 1lb per week average to be just right if you are trying to lose a LOT of weight because it is more sustainable both mentally and physically. It is very hard to train for an athletic event and lose weight at the same time, but a nice slow pace means you are making good progress. Finally take some measurements. Thigh, waist, hips, chest, arm, etc. Many times on weeks when you see no weight movement you will still see movement in those measurements, meaning that you are replacing fat with lean body mass. That's also a very good thing. |
| 2005-08-24 3:51 PM in reply to: #230525 |
Member 41 Palmyra, NY | Subject: RE: Calorie Intake vs. Calorie Burned cadreamer - 2005-08-22 11:15 AM I think some people just lose weight this way. Yep. I do too! It seems to be working fine; I would just leave things alone until you stop losing altogether. ~ Adrienne |
| 2005-08-25 8:27 AM in reply to: #230383 |
Master 1670 Harvard, Illinois | Subject: RE: Calorie Intake vs. Calorie Burned One thing you may want to try is getting your Resting Metabolic Rate tested. I did and found out I burn 1810 calories at rest. Fitday is off by about 300 calories if I enter all of my information. I went to a Healthsouth facility and it cost me about $40.00 I only had to breath into a machine for about 7 minutes and I was done. I am planning on getting tested again next week because I last tested myself 6 months ago. |
| 2005-08-25 8:39 AM in reply to: #233382 |
Master 1210 Saskatchewan | Subject: RE: Calorie Intake vs. Calorie Burned Rowdy - 2005-08-25 9:27 AM One thing you may want to try is getting your Resting Metabolic Rate tested. I did and found out I burn 1810 calories at rest. Fitday is off by about 300 calories if I enter all of my information. I went to a Healthsouth facility and it cost me about $40.00 I only had to breath into a machine for about 7 minutes and I was done. I am planning on getting tested again next week because I last tested myself 6 months ago. Yeah, anyplace that does BodyGem testing can do this. Here's a locator tool...http://www.metabolicfingerprint.com/ |
| 2005-08-25 8:43 AM in reply to: #233382 |
Elite Veteran 777 flatland | Subject: RE: Calorie Intake vs. Calorie Burned Rowdy - 2005-08-25 8:27 AM One thing you may want to try is getting your Resting Metabolic Rate tested. I did and found out I burn 1810 calories at rest. Fitday is off by about 300 calories if I enter all of my information. Hear, hear! I burn about 400 fewer calories than the estimates say I should -- not knowing that will screw up your weight loss efforts, for sure. It's time to get myself retested, come to think of it. Thanks for the reminder.  |
| 2005-08-25 10:56 AM in reply to: #233382 |
Elite 3020 Bay Area, CA | Subject: RE: Calorie Intake vs. Calorie Burned Rowdy - 2005-08-25 6:27 AM One thing you may want to try is getting your Resting Metabolic Rate tested. This sounds cool, any ideas on what it costs to have this measured? |
| 2005-08-25 11:05 AM in reply to: #233576 |
Extreme Veteran 370 Mesa AZ | Subject: RE: Calorie Intake vs. Calorie Burned I got mine tested as well. You need to do it regularly. (At 260 it was 2130. At 225 it was 1910) Bally's also generally do it, and aren't overly pushy on the sales. It cost me $40 each time. (You can also buy the machines yourself but they aren't cheap....) |
| 2005-08-25 11:07 AM in reply to: #233399 |
Extreme Veteran 370 Mesa AZ | Subject: RE: Calorie Intake vs. Calorie Burned madeye - 2005-08-25 6:43 AM Rowdy - 2005-08-25 8:27 AM One thing you may want to try is getting your Resting Metabolic Rate tested. I did and found out I burn 1810 calories at rest. Fitday is off by about 300 calories if I enter all of my information. Hear, hear! I burn about 400 fewer calories than the estimates say I should -- not knowing that will screw up your weight loss efforts, for sure. It's time to get myself retested, come to think of it. Thanks for the reminder. Me too...(September at the latest) If your rate is low, one thing you can do is more weight lifting. The more muscle you build, the higher that number will go. Now, it's hard to build muscle and lose fat at the same time so it may not build as fast as you like, but it can definitely help support that number. |
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK