Fitness Minutes: (39,000)
2,269 5/16/13 12:51 A
we all burn calories just sitting around... that's your BMR.. I bet you probably burn about 1900 cals a day just doing the normal sitting around. But Spark takes that into account and gives you an eating range to lose weight.
Fitness Minutes: (3,449)
310 5/15/13 11:13 P
The HRM watches (still not sure if thats what you have, or a fitbit type thing) are good... just not for all-day use. Mine does help motivate me at the gym, I think its one of the best things I bought all year, actually ^_^
Fitness Minutes: (14,252)
9,688 5/15/13 9:28 A
Online Now • ))
There is nothing wrong with not knowing something; you didn't sound "uneducated" to me, just confused by the data you had!
Those watches are okay; they're not a bad way to motivate yourself, but I do feel they provide an inaccurate picture of what we do.
Fitness Minutes: (416)
11 5/14/13 8:56 P
Yeah, isn't that what the calorie range is for? Living?
1. Tomorrow I am making a trip to wal-mart and returning the watch lol. 2. I know that My first post made me sound a little on the uneducated side. I just had a horrible day and was trying to make myself feel better. I was down to 170 and after the last few weeks of feeling great I realized i had quit working out as hard and watching what I eat. Because I do normally eat 6 small meals a day. however I am back to 176 and want to cry. But instead I will suck it up and Kick it back into High Gear :) Thanks guys!
Fitness Minutes: (3,449)
310 5/14/13 6:33 P
Your BMR is probably somewhere between 1300 and 1600, so if you sat around for 1/3 of the day that would basically cover it (assuming you didn't move at all... which is why SP multiplies the BMR by 1.2 to account for 'little things' that shouldn't be added to your exertion list as they're already accounted for). Therefor, the 500 the device saw wasn't extra calories you can eat... it was the reason you have the bottom number you do ^_~. Also, if you're talking about a Heart Rate monitor (and not a fitbit type thing), those aren't supposed to be used for extended periods of time, or really be used at rest. I'd argue the 500cal is an over estimation since the formulas those use probably assume that any spikes in HR are based on muscles needing more energy vs just stress, excitement, etc.
Edited by: ALORTA at: 5/14/2013 (18:35)
Fitness Minutes: (82,153)
2,489 5/14/13 6:25 P
1200 is the *minimum* you should eat to ensure you're still meeting your macro/micro nutrient requirements. 2100 cals is probably close to your maintenance calorie needs (the amount you would need to eat to maintain your current weight). Even if you eat above this amount, if you're creating a calorie deficit the rest of the week you won't gain weight. A single day, will not make or break weight loss. If you consistently eat above maintenance, you'll gain weight. If you consistently eat below maintenance, you'll lose weight.
Yes, you burn calories just existing. This is called your BMR (basal metabolic rate), add activity and exercise to this and you get your total maintenance calorie needs. The average maintenance needs for women is around 2000 cals more or less depening on their age, weight, activity level/exercise and body fat percentage.
It really irks me when women who workout think they should only be taking in 1200 cals a day and then wonder why their weight loss stalls out. It's ridiculously low. I eat 1500 cals a day and lose weight at 5'2 108 lbs.
I agree with the previous poster, especially with those gadgets. Personally I've never heard of them but I think they are just another way for some company to swindle people out of their money.
Everyone is going to go over once in a while, and that's ok. It is better to eat all your meals anyway rather than to skip. Otherwise you will really be regretting that decision later and you may try to eat everything in sight (among other reasons). When you go home, still work out if if you were planning to anyway but DEF eat dinner.
Tomorrow is another day and just don't beat yourself over it. Try not to make it a habit though; otherwise you will see the scale going up consistently.
First things first - you're not ONLY to eat 1200 calories. You should have a range of calories you can eat, and if 1200 is one end, 1550 is probably the other. You don't have to eat only 1200 calories!
Secondly, this is where I think those "calorie counter" gadgets can lead to bad habits - people see they've burned 500 calories sitting around, and think they can eat big time because they burned that off! Unless you are incredibly active, eating 2100+ calories a day probably will lead to weight gain at your weight. By all means, you shouldn't starve yourself for the rest of the night because you need to "undo" the 2100 calories, nor should you decide you "blew it" and eat another 1000 more - but you should put in your true activity in to your Fitness section, get a calorie range that represents what you should be eating to sustain your activity, and eat within that.
Don't forget that you burn calories just existing - heart beats, digestion, regrowing a scraped knee all cost calories. So burning 449 calories sitting still doesn't mean "eat all the things!"
Okay ....I ate OVER my calorie intake today. Like I ate 2100 calories and I am to only eat 1200. So i Have one of those calorie burning watches. and Sitting here I have burnt 449 calories...So does that mean I can eat more later after I have burnt more? Meaning If i go home and Work out to burn even more calories can i eat supper?
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.