B.Alive

I've been using an app on my Droid phone called "My Fitness Pal." I really like it because it makes recording my intake easier on me. Plus, the internet version really makes entering data simple and easy.

Anyway, according to "My Fitness Pal," IO should be eating 2030 calories per day to lose 2 pounds per week. But, when I add in my cycling into the exercise diary, it increases the number of calories for my daily goal by the number of calories burnt.

For example, I'm 280 pounds (as of last Monday) and my daily goal is 2030. I rode for 2 hours on the trainer today for an estimated burn of 1778 calories for a stationary cycle at my weight, moderate exertion, and time. Now, my goal intake for the day is 3808 calories.

According to the help section and their forum, the program designer/nutritional person says that the 2030 calorie goal is established to reach your gaol (ie 2 pound weight loss per week.) Exercising will increase your ability to burn fat and the amount of calories burnt per day. If you eat a lot less than the combined amount (goal plus exercise calories burnt) your body will slow it's metabolism down and weight loss will become difficult and slow WAY down.

Now, I get that. But do these numbers seem a little out of whack you? Could the problem of my stagnate weight loss be from eating too little food? That just doesn't seem right to me.

bbeasley

I'm using LiveStrong.com and it thinks I should be eating 1605 per day. I'm 5'8" and 225ish. I picked the "Sedentary" lifestyle as all I do is sit on my fat rear behind a computer all day. The only activity I book is cycling. I choose the lowest calorie per hour, 800, despite the over 1000 per hour recommended for the speeds I ride. I told LiveStrong that I wanted to lose 1.5 pounds per week.

I always over estimate my calories by picking the highest number for the food choice. This combined with the 800 per hour cycling burn and I'm actually on track for the weight loss. LiveStrong.com adds calories back in for exercise (perhaps they all do as I'm new to this). In Jan. I'm over 400 miles so that was a bunch of calories added to the 1605.

I started calorie tracking on the advice of a BF member. It's taught me quite a bit about my poor eating behaviors.

kansastdi

ideal would be to eat the 2000 or so calories per day for a week without exercising. If you lose weight then you are under the basic daily caloric requirement for your body. This would not be a computer program telling you but your experimental results. If you lose 2 lbs then great - add exercise and adjust calories as desired. If you lose more than 2 lbs then maybe you might up the calories per day consumed and run another test week. i would start exercising and up the calories abit and adjust each week for desired result.

Each person is different and knowing the basic amount of calories consumed needed to maintain weight would be valuable. What if you found out through trial and error that you could consume 3000 cal per day and still lose 2 lbs per week. 1000 more calories per day may make a difference whether you stayed on the diet or fell off the wagon.

john423

I think Your Fitness Pal assumes you're not exercising when in fact you are.

Here's my favorite Internet smartie Lyle McDonald on the subject (he's closer to your line of thinking):
How to Estimate Maintenance Calories

Then read:

Setting the deficit - Small, Moderate or Large

B.Alive

Very interesting! According to this gentleman, 11-13 cal/pound would result in a 1-1.5 pound fat loss per week. And that's based on a 15-20% reduction of his normal 14-16 cal/pound for maintenance.

So, that would mean that my maintenance calories/day would be 3920-4480 (numbers I've actually seen on some website calculators like caloriesperhour.com.) And a 15-20% reductions would be 3080-3640 calories per day to lose 1-2 pounds per week.

Using these figures, My Fitness Pal is suggesting 2030 cal/day to loose 2 pounds per week--or 7.25 cal/pound (which Lyle McDonald from the articles has stated he's seen very sedentary people needing to go as low as 8 cal/pound to lose fat/weight.) Add in the exercise and the daily caloric intake increases to 13.5 cal/pound (using the numbers in my first post.)

So, judging by these articles, I'd say that My Fitness Pal isn't far off. Very interesting.

One thing I did not was the notion that Lyle suggests a total diet break of 10-14 days (increasing you daily calories to maintenance)

sinclac

I can pretty much guarantee you don't burn 1700 + calories in 2 hours on the trainer, it takes me about 60 miles at a 15 MPH average to burn that
I have a good idea about calorie burn as i have been wearing one of these for 2 years.
https://www.bodymedia.com/

B.Alive

Very interesting.

I've used a BUNCH of different calculators online, plus the METS formula, and get all kinds of crazy numbers. BUT, I did find this website this morning https://bikecalculator.com/wattsUS.html

BIG difference! Shows 644 calories for the 2 hour ride I mentioned above.

sinclac

So last Sunday i did 26 miles and this is what i got mostly flat ride just 800 Ft of elevation gain so at that 52 miles would be 1880 i was a tad low on the first post.

CALORIES BURNED PER MINUTE

From: 9:45 AM
To: 12:25 PM
Calories Burned 940
AVG. METS 4.09
This is straight from my activity manager.
Here is the ride notice that Garmin is off too.
https://connect.garmin.com/activity/64864918

gbg

Anybody that thinks they can get over 600 cals/hour on a trainer is fooling themselves.
First, body weight on a stationary trainer is meaningless. It comes into effect in the real world "actually moving" that mass, especially uphill.

This summer I bought a powertap wheel for my MTB. This is about the most accurate way to "Measure" not "use some formula to calculate"
actual work done (ie. calories burned).

At 270+ lbs on my 2" 40psi semi knobby MTB tires averaging 16-17mph, I would burn about about 500-600cals per hour, in the real world.
That is averaging right around 200watts, which is a pretty hard effort for 2 hours.

So your 3808 cals for the day s/b about 3030 max. Not only is this way more realistic it will give you way better results.

I have seen eliptical trainers that gave up to 3000cals/hr estimates.

Santaria

I'm totally boggled by all this (very informative thread btw).

I hit my high weight at 271 the day AFTER Thanksgiving.

I immediately switched my eating habits BACK to what I was doing before I put on a significant amount of weight through two simple bad habits.

Eating fast food burgers while gaming and eating large pizzas 2-3 times a week with my kids instead of cooking.

I started running, etc. Riding came in when I got my bike back up and running.

I sat down and figured out that I was eating around 2-3000 calories a day and drinking another 1000-2000 in Mt. Dew.

I give all that information because now I'm back to vegetarianism.

I am down as of yesterday to 230 lbs.

Based on this thread though, I'm doing something terribly wrong.

I am getting around 1800 calories a day. This isn't a "I'm starving" issue. In at least 2 of those meals I feel like I'm actually eating too much.

My exercise output from the last 7 days looks like this:

1/23/11 26.29 miles ridden in 1:40:30
1/24/11 4 miles ran in 0:53:28
1/25/11 5 miles ran in 1:12:00
1/26/11 14 mile commute at 0:32:00
1/26/11 60 mile training ride at 4:05:00
1/27/11 5 miles ran in 1:11:00
1/28/11 5 miles ran in 1:11:00
1/28/11 3 mile commute at 0:14:00
1/29/11 off day
1/30/11 3.2 miles ran in 0:37:00
1/30/11 30 mile training ride at 1:55:00

On the 26th, I probably only took in 2200 calories (for the entire day) with 2 bars (clif bars=500 total calories give or take) during my ride. If what I'm reading is true though, I should have gorged another 3000 calories to be balanced on a metabolic level?

I guess that's what's confusing me. On any given day, I struggle to get close to 2k calories from my diet. It is well-balanced for a vegetarian. I couldn't even fathom where to come up with the 500+ (based on daily exercises) calories I'd have to consume to keep a moderate weight loss going without adding in stuff I don't want or need to eat.

Edit: I downloaded that app. Very interesting. After inputting my info it says my net calories should be 1530 but that I will have to consume an additional 3162 (after what I've already had for breakfast/snack). argh!

john423

The defining thing is: Are you losing weight at the rate you'd like? If so, full steam ahead, don't change a thing.

If weight loss slows, actually try boosting the calories a bit (with the boost coming primarily from carbs) and see if that helps.

I've always used Lyle's guestimation (above) of bodyweight X 15 for maintenance (not gaining or losing) and bodyweight x 12 for dieting, which in your case would be 3,450 and 2,760, respectively. And this includes activity level so you don't have to worry about what you're burning while training.

But again, if you're happy with your weight loss, do not overthink this. Just keep doing what you're doing.

gbg

While I would not go vegetarian, could you give an example of a typical 2000 cal day that is a struggle (I assume you mean struggle to consume)?
What is the make up of this 2000cals, fruits/veggies etc?

Sayre Kulp 

It's true. When you go crazy burning calories, you have to eat a bit more than you normally would. Your body is crazy good at adapting, so if you give it a huge calorie deficit all the time, your metabolism will get better at conserving fuel and running hard on less calories. it sounds weird, but I swear it's true. That's one of the truth bases behind "cheater" meals. Tossing in higher calorie days every once in a while keeps your metabolism from becoming set to run on very low energy stores.