Weight Loss - I'm clearly not grasping something...
Comments
-
Ok so I've downloaded that app and entered my ride into work this morning and what I had for breakfast and at my tea break and what I've got with me for my lunch and it's telling me I still need to find 2513 calories from somewhere! :shock:
That's not even including my ride home!
Am I supposed to make sure I take in all the calories and protein it's saying I have available or is that purely showing what I'm in defecit?
Just spoke to my wife on the phone and she laughed and asked what I suggest she makes for tea that's going to have that in. :?0 -
I've found with Myfitnesspal that the calorie estimates for exercise are gigantic compared to any other estimates. Just use it for the calorie counting of what you're taking in, if anything.0
-
I entered my own calories burnt figures from Mapmyride which I have the HRM for so like to think it's pretty accurate. Anyway, that aside, by the end of the day it's going to suggest I need to consume approx 3500 calories on top of what I've already had for breakfast, elevenses and lunch. Where am I supposed to find that or more importantly, do I need to?0
-
Portland Bill wrote:but for the last couple of months I've been weighing myself once a week on a Wednesday morning and over the last 4 weeks, I've lost 2lb.
Extrapolate that over 52 weeks and you're on schedule to lose 26lbs / 1st 12lbs in a year.
Just how fast do you want to lose weight?0 -
Portland Bill wrote:I entered my own calories burnt figures from Mapmyride which I have the HRM for so like to think it's pretty accurate.
Wrong, halve it to be on the safe side.0 -
Portland Bill wrote:I entered my own calories burnt figures from Mapmyride which I have the HRM for so like to think it's pretty accurate. Anyway, that aside, by the end of the day it's going to suggest I need to consume approx 3500 calories on top of what I've already had for breakfast, elevenses and lunch. Where am I supposed to find that or more importantly, do I need to?
Unless you've been riding for 6-7 hours I doubt that's anywhere near accurate.0 -
Perhaps not if you live in London or Norfolk where the highest hills are the sleeping policemen in your front street, but I don't. I live in Northumberland, my commute is 18.1miles and there's Cat 5 and 4 climbs on my way to work and this morning I averaged 18.6mph.
I've just checked on several different calorie calculators online and even without the altitude taken into account they all come in around the 1150-1200 mark or am I not supposed to pay any attention to those either and just assume everything is wrong and just pick numbers out of the sky?
Starting to wonder where I'm supposed to get reliable information from if everything I already rely on is "wrong".
Anyway, whether my data is wrong or not, can somebody tell me whether I'm supposed to be taking on those remaining calories or just basking in the glory of the deficit?0 -
Portland Bill wrote:Perhaps not if you live in London or Norfolk where the highest hills are the sleeping policemen in your front street, but I don't. I live in Northumberland, my commute is 18.1miles and there's Cat 5 and 4 climbs on my way to work and this morning I averaged 18.6mph.
I've just checked on several different calorie calculators online and even without the altitude taken into account they all come in around the 1150-1200 mark or am I not supposed to pay any attention to those either and just assume everything is wrong and just pick numbers out of the sky?
Starting to wonder where I'm supposed to get reliable information from if everything I already rely on is "wrong".
I won't comment on the mis-conception that Norfolk is flat, as its a little off topic.............
18.1 miles at 18.6mph is less than an hour, 250w for an hour is around 900cals, I doubt you were averaging 330+watts for your ride......
A power meter is the only accurate way to derive calories, anything else is a poor guess.
Compared to a power meter, calorie calc's on Garmin and other forms of calculation are around twice as much.0 -
Right ok, fair enough but I can only do what I'm capable of and I can't afford to go out and buy a power meter so I can only rely on what I've got access to.
So working on the basis that I'm only burning half the amount of calories I've been told so far, even though I haven't done my commute home yet I'll halve my total for today and work with what this app says now and just forget the calories burned on my return journey.
A banana and diet whey protein shake for breakfast followed by a cup of tea with semi-skimmed milk (no sugar) and an apple at 10:30, followed by the bowl of homemade tomato and courgette soup and a banana I've just had, that still leaves me with around 2700 remaining calories for today.
Referring back to me being told that I'm not eating enough, I'm concerned about whether or not I'm supposed to be making sure I take on those remaining calories, or am I just supposed to make sure I don't exceed that remainder?0 -
2700 left seems like a HELL of a lot of calories............0
-
I've been using MyFitnessPal + newbie to cycling for about the last 16 weeks, set my profile to lose 1lb a week, which is a 500 calories deficit NET.
In those 16 weeks I have lost 15lbs, it's almost worked out perfectly, and one of those weeks I have a bit of a holiday and a week 'off'.
Set myself to sedentary and simply ate the calories back to get to my 'net' for the day.
I pay absolutely no attention at all to how much sugar, protein etc. I am trying to eat, it doesn't really make any difference when simply looking to reduce calories and lose weight. I've eaten what some people would tell you is a horror diet (and it is, KFC, mmmm) but I've still simply counted all the calories, and it's a steady and gradual loss of a pound a week almost without fail. I'm down to 155lbs and my net is 1550 now. Normally I exercise most days, I'll at least be actually eating 2000+, but it's the net that matters.
HOWEVER
The main problem with MyFitnessPal is the calories it says you have burned off. I did a 1 hour 2 mins 20 mile TT yesterday (flat) that seemed to think I had burned off 917 calories, which obviously is a joke, way out. My Garmin said 820, also way too high, Strava seemed a lot more realistic when I loaded it in at 675 calories for the same ride.
The difference is often huge.
Another example:
57.8 miles ridden the other day, 3200 feet of climbing, 3 hours 38 mins (I''m not quick). MyFitnessPal reckons 2671 (as do many online calcs, around the same) for that ride. Nonsense!! Way too much, and if I ate all those calories back I would put weight on! The real figure is more like 1900 max burned off.
MyFitnessPal is great for tracking the food, but be very careful about using it to guesstimate how many calories you have burned off.
Without a power meter it's very hard, but if you don't have one I would at least go with Strava. It's always the lowest, which undoubtedly means it's 'closer' to the truth.
Anyway, hope it's of some help from my recent experience 8)0 -
It isn'tdanowat wrote:2700 left seems like a HELL of a lot of calories............0 -
T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:
It isn'tdanowat wrote:2700 left seems like a HELL of a lot of calories............
What from a hours commute, breakfast and lunch?, and still have 2700cals left?.0 -
The OP should probably consult his other thread.danowat wrote:T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:
It isn'tdanowat wrote:2700 left seems like a HELL of a lot of calories............
What from a hours commute, breakfast and lunch?, and still have 2700cals left?.0 -
How are you getting the 2700 figure? That still seems high to me. Your BMR is the calories your body needs to sustain itself every day.
If you take the average height and weight for a UK male, then that figure is under 1,800 per day. Add on your exercise onto that and go from there. If you have a desk job don't assume that you'll burn off much more during your day job.0 -
I'm a maintenance engineer in a large hotel. I spend all day every daydashing around the hotel only stopping for 5mins once in a while to check e-mails, keep up with paperwork etc...
I guess Myfitnesspal bases that on requiring 2500cals evey day based on the same RDA you find on the back of most food packaging.
I'm 5'8" and weigh 192lbs. I am overweight but I'm not huge or fat, just a bit flabby here and there but I used to play a lot of Rugby until I injured my knee so I'm fairly well built anyway.
The 2513 (Now! It said 2734 just before...) remainder comes from 1870cal target, -1273cal from ride in to work (like I say, taken from mapmyride), +630 food so far giving me a net of -643.
I think when I set the profile up last night I put that I wanted to lose 1.5lb/week.
I've noticed a few of my club mates using Strava. Is that generally regarded as more reliable than mapmyride?0 -
Who cares which site is more reliable? They're just numbers, just like the food you're eating, more numbers (calories), you've no reliable way of knowing how many calories you're consuming.
Forget about calories (within reason), and just carry on what you're doing, since you've already told us that it's working.0 -
dodgy wrote:Who cares which site is more reliable? They're just numbers, just like the food you're eating, more numbers (calories), you've no reliable way of knowing how many calories you're consuming.
Forget about calories (within reason), and just carry on what you're doing, since you've already told us that it's working.
You're fixated with the fact that calories guideline amounts aren't pinpoint accurate. But noting weights and volumes of food that you eat makes it unnecessary to know calorie amounts. As long as it sets a benchmark you can adjust off those.
Numbers are worth looking at, even if it's simply to make you more aware of what you're putting in your mouth.All the above is just advice .. you can do whatever the f*ck you wana do!
Bike Radar Strava Club
The Northern Ireland Thread0 -
dw300 wrote:dodgy wrote:Who cares which site is more reliable? They're just numbers, just like the food you're eating, more numbers (calories), you've no reliable way of knowing how many calories you're consuming.
Forget about calories (within reason), and just carry on what you're doing, since you've already told us that it's working.
You're fixated with the fact that calories guideline amounts aren't pinpoint accurate. But noting weights and volumes of food that you eat makes it unnecessary to know calorie amounts. As long as it sets a benchmark you can adjust off those.
Numbers are worth looking at, even if it's simply to make you more aware of what you're putting in your mouth.
Not fixated at all, I don't measure food, I eat when I'm hungry and I'm a healthy weight. The OP is losing weight steadily, I just don't understand what the problem or the point of this thread is?0 -
I guess I've just somehow managed to lose weight at a slightly more impressive rate before so feel a little deflated (or not as the case may be) when I don't see the gains I was hoping for.
At the end of the day, everything that's been debated or advised throughout this thread has given me a lot more to think about and I can honestly say today is the first time I've successfully managed to keep track of exactly what I've eaten and it was perfectly simple to do so with any luck can be something I will maintain and at the very least make me think about what I eat a little more. Even if some of it does end up being crap that I shouldn't really eat at least I'll be more likely to think about it before I actually give in and eat it.
It all helps.0 -
HRM and other guesstimates of calorie metabolism are notoriously wrong, often by a very large margin (like double).Portland Bill wrote:I entered my own calories burnt figures from Mapmyride which I have the HRM for so like to think it's pretty accurate. Anyway, that aside, by the end of the day it's going to suggest I need to consume approx 3500 calories on top of what I've already had for breakfast, elevenses and lunch. Where am I supposed to find that or more importantly, do I need to?
I don't know what sort of cyclist you are, so here's a quick guide to give you some perspective:
A rule of thumb for energy metabolised based on your level of fitness:
1.5W/kg ~ 6 Cal/hour/kg (untrained)
2.0W/kg ~ 8 Cal/hour/kg (fit cyclist / regular exerciser, quality endurance ride)
2.5W/kg ~ 10 Cal/hour/kg (low category racer, solid endurance ride)
3.0W/kg ~ 12 Cal/hour/kg (mid category racer, solid endurance ride)
3.5W/kg ~ 14 Cal/hour/kg (high category racer, solid endurance ride)
So, if for example you are a 2W/kg kind of rider, and weigh 90kg, then
90kg x 8Cal/hour/kg = 720Cal/hour (this assumes you are riding solidly the entire time, no breaks)
If you are obese, I would be leaning towards the 1.5W/kg level, possibly lower.0 -
I can't believe all the waffle in this thread, even the stuff that isn't actually wrong is mostly not very helpful.
If you want to lose weight, eat less calories than you use. If you want to lose weight faster, eat less calories by a greater margin.
Difficult concept to grasp, huh?0 -
bompington wrote:Difficult concept to grasp, huh?
Not really, but its the whole unrealistic expectation thing.
Fact is, its a piece of piss to consume calories, takes effort to expend them.0 -
That's fine guys, I'm going to spend a bit of time just paying attention to what I'm eating. As you say, it's far too easy taking on calories and it's hard work to get rid of them, but hopefully if I can reduce the amount going in, I should start to see a difference, even if it takes a little work and time.
Thank you to all of you for your advice. It's given me a bit of a wake up call which hopefully will help me to understand things a bit better in the long run and with any luck I will continue reducing my body fat and improving with my cycling.0 -
Don't I know it... the diet starts now... well maybe next week.... :oops:danowat wrote:bompington wrote:Fact is, its a piece of wee-wee to consume calories, takes effort to expend them.0 -
bompington wrote:
Don't I know it... the diet starts now... well maybe next week.... :oops:danowat wrote:bompington wrote:Fact is, its a piece of wee-wee to consume calories, takes effort to expend them.
Yes, its very hard, I lost 10 stone over the space of 18 months, so I know as much as anyone just how tough it is......0 -
bompington wrote:I can't believe all the waffle in this thread, even the stuff that isn't actually wrong is mostly not very helpful.
If you want to lose weight, eat less calories than you use. If you want to lose weight faster, eat less calories by a greater margin.
Difficult concept to grasp, huh?
An exemplary addition to the unhelpful "waffle".
It is of course, a simple concept to grasp. Putting the concept into practice is quite another matter.Never mistake motion for action
Tweet@gmunrop69
Trainerroad - GMan690 -
I have to disagree with your opinion that this is unhelpful: and can anyone really claim that all the "advice" in this thread is going to help anyone put the concept into practice?Pigeons in flight wrote:bompington wrote:I can't believe all the waffle in this thread, even the stuff that isn't actually wrong is mostly not very helpful.
If you want to lose weight, eat less calories than you use. If you want to lose weight faster, eat less calories by a greater margin.
Difficult concept to grasp, huh?
An exemplary addition to the unhelpful "waffle".
It is of course, a simple concept to grasp. Putting the concept into practice is quite another matter.
All the facts, figures and pseudoscience obscure the simple fact that, for most of us, the issue is simply that we will have to eat less than we want to, and so feel uncomfortably hungry, to lose weight. It's a matter of making a decision and having the willpower to carry it through, that's all.0 -
Indeed it is.Pigeons in flight wrote:bompington wrote:I can't believe all the waffle in this thread, even the stuff that isn't actually wrong is mostly not very helpful.
If you want to lose weight, eat less calories than you use. If you want to lose weight faster, eat less calories by a greater margin.
Difficult concept to grasp, huh?
An exemplary addition to the unhelpful "waffle".
It is of course, a simple concept to grasp. Putting the concept into practice is quite another matter.0 -
bompington wrote:I have to disagree with your opinion that this is unhelpful: and can anyone really claim that all the "advice" in this thread is going to help anyone put the concept into practice?
All the facts, figures and pseudoscience obscure the simple fact that, for most of us, the issue is simply that we will have to eat less than we want to, and so feel uncomfortably hungry, to lose weight. It's a matter of making a decision and having the willpower to carry it through, that's all.
No, this misses the point. You don't have to eat less than you want and feel uncomfortable to lose weight. If you eat the right foods, you: a) avoid the sugar lows that lead you to eat more than you should; b) fill your stomach up with foods that don't contain as much energy (think energy density, calories/litre - your stomach only holds so much) so you physically prevented from consuming more. So, yes, you can lose weight if all you eat is lard/sugar etc., but you will need to carefully weigh your food and have an iron will. At the other extreme, if you eat the right foods, calorie counting/willpower (other than not selecting the wrong foods in the first place - I'm talking portion size here) is redundant, because you have a built it safety net that stops you overconsuming. Free choice. As someone said above, the principle is obvious, the application is difficult and this is why there are various options to achieving this. Knowledge of the options is what people lack; I'm sure that the vast majority of overweight people in this country could tell you that they need to eat fewer calories to lose weight!0
