Fitness Minutes: (60)
3 7/31/13 7:03 P
Cool this is definitely helpful. I'll recalibrate some of my numbers and check sparks thoughts on my workout loss. Thanks again.
Fitness Minutes: (124,328)
36,551 7/31/13 6:28 P
That is far too low but the tracker should give you more . try adding 150 calories to you intake in the tracker set up.
It sounds as if it got it wrong
Fitness Minutes: (85,382)
7/31/13 5:45 P
The machines are notorious for giving inflated calorie burns. I'd go by what Spark says you burn and maybe invest in a heart rate monitor. I exercise at my maximum heart rate and am lucky to get 400 cals burn in an hour. Are you going by the new feature on Spark where you enter your activity level and your range is in sync with your exercise calories?
If you're burning 600-1000 cals a day through exercise, I have a hard time seeing Spark giving you a bottom range. Something isn't adding up. Unless that range is for your rest days and Spark gives you a higher one on your exercise days.
Eating too little can harm weight loss just as eating too much can. You may lose quickly at first, but your BMR will drop (metabolism slows) and you'll eventually plateau. Not to mention (and I second the strength training)... a combo of eating too little and too much cardio equals muscle burned as fuel while fat is conserved.
Edited by: JENNILACEY at: 7/31/2013 (17:52)
Fitness Minutes: (6,555)
7/31/13 3:10 P
FYI, without strength training up to 30% of weight loss can come from muscle loss because your body is breaking it down for fuel leading to an unfortunate (and unfortunately named) condition called 'skinny fat.' A full body strength routine of squats, deadlifts, push ups, and lat pull downs/pull ups can be done in 30-40 minutes.
Fitness Minutes: (60)
3 7/31/13 2:26 P
Okay, I guess I need to be eating more, but I don't want everyone to be thinking I'm making myself sick. My sparkchart says I should be eating between 1200-1700 calories a day, and I'm eating pretty constantly through the day, breakfast, lunch and dinner and a bunch of snacks. I try to always get 1200 calories.
When it comes to working out, I get the number of calories I'm burning from what the machine tells me I'm burning at the gym, I usually do an hour on the treadmill or the elliptical. I guess on those workout days I'll definitely up my food intake and make sure I'm well up above 1200.
Thanks for letting me know.
7/31/13 9:17 A
I am under 5 ft and under 100 pounds. (though I don't watch tv all day..:P) And I eat more calories than that. Yesterday I had around 1700.
As other have mentioned, you need to adjust your spark goals so that they reflect your activity level. Food is not the enemy. Food is our friend :).
Fitness Minutes: (13,947)
7/31/13 8:21 A
You need to increase your calories!
Fitness Minutes: (85,382)
7/31/13 7:45 A
I only burn 300-400 cals on the days I exercise. I'm 5'2 120 lbs and when I'm losing weight eat between 1500-1800 cals. You are definitely under eating. Unless you're under 5 foot tall and under 100 lbs and spend your entire day watching TV, 1000-1200 cals is not enough by far.
High levels of activity definitely require more fuel to support it.
600-1000 calories per workout is a LOT of exercise. How are you calculating this?
But assuming you are burning this many calories, you do need to be eating more. If you enter your exercise into the fitness tracker, Spark should recommend an intake level appropriate for your needs.
Fitness Minutes: (41,738)
523 7/31/13 4:43 A
Unless you have some disorder that causes a markedly slow metabolic rate (slower than usual hypothyroidism even), or unless you are being supervised by a competent doctor who has prescribed this regime for you-
YES you need to eat more!
I'm not a certified expert in these things, but you definitely need to be eating more. Nobody I know can run on 1000 calories a day healthily- and only those who are teeny, elderly, and sedentary can live off of 1200. I don't even know how 1200 became this "magic number."
I don't know your height, weight, age, or really even gender, but I am almost positive you burn *at least* 1600-1700 calories a day *when you do absolutely nothing but the basic living things, like eating, bathing, watching TV, etc*. When you throw in a 600-1000 kcal workout, you're burning a total of over 2200 calories (and that's if you have a very sedentary job).
So, if you eat 1000-1200 calories, you're eating to lose roughly 2 lbs a week *at the very minimum* and at the maximum... 3.4 lbs a week.
Do you weigh 340 lbs? If you don't, this isn't healthy for you... When it comes to losing weight and getting healthy, *fast* loss is often not *fat* loss. Your body will start eating away at your muscles, not your fat. That's the opposite of what you want.
If you do weigh 340 lbs then chances are you're burning a lot more than 1600-1700 kcal a day doing nothing. A 340 lb woman probably burns 2200 kcal doing nothing a day, so really no matter *how* much you weigh, this regime you have going on isn't healthy.
I don't mean to scare you too badly but it does worry me when I see people eating so little and working out so much.
Increase your calories so you are eating *at the very minimum* your BMR. Use the Harris-Benedict Equation and search online. For me, a 5'4" 130 lb 19yo female, BMR is 1432 kcal. For a woman my height and weight by 40yo BMR is 1333. Try to make sure your daily average is *no less* than this. This is just a start to help you eat more... because if you're like me, eating more while staying in control can be really difficult.
To be even more healthy, what I'd recommend is to evaluate your goals. Use SP's program to help with that. When you re-adjust your goals, instead of setting an arbitrary weight and date, do the 'enter a goal date and find out how much to lose by then'. They recommend losing no more than 1% of your body weight a week, so what I'd do is this: choose a date that is 5 weeks from now, and each week aim to lose 1% of your current body weight. So you would set the date on the "enter a goal date' to be 5 weeks away and when it wants you to enter in a weight loss rate, do 1% of current weight a week (200 becomes 2, 175 because 1.75). After you reach that goal weight, redo the goal- because you don't want to be losing TOO much weight. After 5 weeks if you start at 200 lbs, you're at 190 lbs, and then you should only lose about 1.9 lbs a week to be healthier.
SP with automatically adjust your calorie goal range if you do this :) Just make sure that you are entering your activity on the fitness tracker and you have your fitness goals set up.
I hope I don't confuse you with this... I just want you to be healthy :)
You absolutely need to be eating more. 1200 is the bare minimum for a small woman that doesn't move all day. It's just about impossible to get all the nutrients you need to fuel your body on less.
If you were lazing around all day, I would maaaaybe say 1200 is enough. But you're burning up to 1000 calories everyday? You need to eat a lot more to fuel all that. Remember that it's not just exercise that's using those calories, your body needs those calories to keep your organs running, maintain muscle, keep bodily functions moving. Plus burning 1000 calories at once is just a lot of exercise unless you are very heavy. Why are you exercising so much? I'm honestly shocked your able to sustain exercise for that long on 1000 calories of food.
What are your spark ranges? Do you have your fitness page set up to count all that exercise?
Fitness Minutes: (60)
3 7/30/13 11:34 P
Hi, I've been working out and trying to eat right for a while now. I've generally hit a plateau and I'm a bit worried the plateau is caused by my body thinking it's in starvation mode. I try to eat around 1000-1200 calories a day and then I go workout and probably burn anywhere from 600-1000. Do I need to be eating more if I'm burning that many calories? Thanks so much for any insight on this.
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.