Author: Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
UNIDENT Posts: 33,498
10/24/12 2:06 P

That's correct. Your calorie intake range is affected by your exercise goal, not your exercise tracked.

10/24/12 5:45 A

I am going to keep tracking it because I like to know how many km I walk per week and this is an easy way to do it. Since I don't say that I plan to burn x calories doing it, it shouldn't affect my calorie range, should it?

UNIDENT Posts: 33,498
10/23/12 1:47 P

"I just think calling it "no" exercise makes it sound like I might as well sit in front of the computer all day instead, which isn't really true either."

Nonsense. :)

You would take the stairs, not the lift, right? Would you track that? "1 flight of stairs - 27 seconds"? No, you wouldn't.

Same with "walking about".

MUCH better to do than sitting on the couch. But not "track-worthy" exercise.

Remember that your daily calorie allowance already includes a factor for an average (sedentary) lifestyle, which includes walking about some. So tracking it would more likely double-count those calories than help you towards your goals.

Track the huffy puffy sweaty stuff! :)

NIRERIN Posts: 14,302
10/23/12 8:20 A

one other thing to remember is that your body gets really efficient at doing the things that you do all the time. so if you're walking and carrying stuff all the time, your body finds a way to be very efficient doing that. you'll be burning more calories using walking as your mode of transport than you would a car, but you'll be burning fewer calories than if you devoted that walking time to working out. let me try to put this in numbers for you. say your bmr and daily activities not working out and not walking would be 1750 cals a day. your bmr and daily activities while using walking as your mode of transport might be 1835. but had you spent your time swimming or in a kickboxing class or actually workout out, your total calories burned for the day [bmr + daily activities+ exercise] might have been 2010. and i completely pulled those numbers out of thin air to illustrate my point. but the idea is there. what you're doing will have a little higher burn, but not as good as actual exercise.

10/23/12 4:17 A

Yeah, I definitely get that it's not really a serious workout, even though I do walk fast and carry a lot of stuff. I just think calling it "no" exercise makes it sound like I might as well sit in front of the computer all day instead, which isn't really true either.

UNIDENT Posts: 33,498
10/22/12 6:19 P

Well, walking is great exercise! If you're doing it for exercise.

If you're doing it for errands and just getting from A to B in your daily tasks, that is unlikely to be getting you into an aerobic level of performance. For exercise to 'count', it has to get your heart rate up and keep it up. Think 'huffy puffy sweaty'.

If you think your errand walking is doing that, maybe some if it might count. But you should track stuff that you're doing that challenges you, gets the HR up, maintains a high intensity.

Walking, for most folks who are moderately fit anyway, is less likely to do that.

10/22/12 5:20 P

Okay, I tried your experiment. When I put in a start and goal weight of 59kg with a goal of October 2013, it gave me a range of 1360-1710. It stayed as that when I changed it back to my real start weight and left the goal as October 2013. This overlaps with my previous range and I pretty much eat in it already, so I guess it doesn't really change what I'm doing much. I'm surprised it's so low but I guess it's due to my lack of cardio. Why doesn't walking count? It counts for people who aren't doing it to run errands. Does it just not count because I have to carry groceries on my way back?

UNIDENT Posts: 33,498
10/21/12 3:06 P

Christmas 2012 is too soon for 4kg on you. As pointed out, half a pound a week is a much more realistic goal for you, especially considering you do apparently no "exercise" (walking as a means to get from A to B doesn't count).

Closer to goal weight, you need to eat near maintenance, just a bit under. So 1300-1600 ish is not "too high", it is "too low" for you.

Here's what I would do in your situation: Set your goal date to a year ahead, and set your start and goal weights to the same (goal) figure. This tells Spark you want to maintain your ideal weight. You'll get a range, the bottom of which is about 200 calories below what it would take to maintain. Since you want a daily deficit of 200 calories to lose half a pound a week (250, but let's not quibble), just eat at about the bottom of the maintenance range until you have lost the excess weight and are ready to move up into the middle and maintain it.

Set this anyway - it will be an interesting experiment. Even if you want to go back to what you had before, what is the "maintain your goal weight" range that it gave you?

Edited by: UNIDENT at: 10/21/2012 (15:07)
10/21/12 1:05 P

Thanks for your responses!

Actually my original goal date was November 1, 2012, and I wasn't going to make it, but it was still in as that. Maybe the fact that I could never make that goal at this point broke all the calculations? I just changed it to Christmas 2012 and now my range is back at 1200-1550. Which I guess could be too low by Nirerin's good argument. Hmm. I'm okay with everything coming off slowly. Actually I'm pretty happy with my current weight but still would like to try to get to my original goal eventually.

NIRERIN Posts: 14,302
10/21/12 9:02 A

if you're 139lbs and your bmr is 1687, then i'd say that any range that has you eating under your bmr is way too low. when you don't have much to lose, it has to come off slowly and you can't support a large deficit. so eating pretty much right at maintenance [your bmr + your daily activities+ exercise - no more than 250 cals] is where you want to be. eating too few calories is just going to increase the chance of you burning muscle rather than fat if you actually do lose.

JENNILACEY SparkPoints: (81,972)
Fitness Minutes: (86,286)
Posts: 2,489
10/21/12 7:55 A

It may have to do with when you have your goal date set. The more aggressive you set it, the lower your cal range will be. In my opinion, it wouldn't be appropriate to set yours any more aggressive than 1/2 lbs per week because you're already so close to your goal weight. You *should* be eating pretty close to maintenance now and aiming to lose about 1/2 lbs/week. This will trick your body into thinking its ok to shed a little more weight and that you are not in a time of famine (starvation mode).

The other possibility is that you have not entered how many actual calories you burn per week into your fitness setup. You can enter the amount manually at the bottom of your "fitness setup".

Edited by: JENNILACEY at: 10/21/2012 (08:01)
10/21/12 5:22 A

When I added 3 days/week of strength training (body weight) to my plan, my calorie range increased to 1310-1660. My BMR is listed as 1687. Is this right? It seems too high.

ETA: My "cardio" is to walk 19km/week which I usually meet just by living my regular life since walking is my primary form of transport. So it's not very demanding.

Edited by: NIGHTFLOAT at: 10/21/2012 (07:02)
Page: 1 of (1)  

Other Diet and Nutrition Topics:

Topics: Last Post:
Lose five pounds =2 weeks, gain 5 pounds =2 days 12/16/2016 6:06:06 AM
Quest Protein Powder? 12/10/2016 9:57:48 AM
questioning info i read in article meal planning 9/16/2016 8:45:47 AM
Gluten and rice free grain alternatives 5/15/2017 7:28:59 AM
Water 2/25/2017 7:21:40 PM