I have to burn 350 calories through excercise every day???!?!

I have read that the statistics on successful weight loss maintenance indicate women burn 2500 calories weekly through excercise. Thats 350 calories a day, like running for 30 minutes on a tredmill at 6mph. EVERYDAY. I've also read these same people eat 1300-1400 calories a day?! Isn't that low if they are working out that much?!

(one place that I read this..)
http://www.annecollins.com/lose_weight/weight -maintenance.htm

What about weight training days?? I'd have to work out for like 1 1/2 hours to burn that many calories without combining cardio in there! but i though you supposed to keep the two seperate? geez!

I go to the gym 6-7 days a week, 3 days a week running 6mph for 2-3 miles (25-35 mins) and I circut train 3 times a week for about 45mins, working very hard. I'm 5 foot 7 female, 127 lbs, (trying to get to 125 actually) Am i not working hard enough?!? I eat like 1600-1700 cals right now...

Suddenly i feel like I'm going to become fat..

If you're 5'7" and only weigh 127 lbs, why are you trying to lose weight?  Have you considered just focusing on being happy and healthy as you are, eating properly and getting daily exercise, rather than worrying about losing those last 2 pounds??  At your current stats, you're perfectly fine.  Your BMI is borderline underweight actually.  Focus on living and enjoying life, not on becoming fat! 

Point taken.. but... do i really have to eat 1400 calories and work out an hour everyday to maintain my weight?

I don't know about that article... those numbers are just an average of everyone in their database.  If you're 5'7", you're on the taller side (for a woman), and if you're younger than the average age of the database population, you are going to have a higher BMR.  I wouldn't take these statistics as a guideline of what you should be doing.

If you've been eating 1600-1700 cals for a while and maintaining your weight at 127, that's not going to change just because you read an article that said otherwise.

Also, if you know how much you've been eating and doing to maintain weight, you're in about the best place you could be to start losing weight: just do a little more, or eat a little less. The more you do, the faster you'll lose -- WITHIN REASON. Be careful with this because you could sabotage your own efforts by putting too much stress in your body without adequate energy.

But if you have the patience (and, since you've only got 2 lbs to go, I'd recommend patience) then just start to do a little more than you've been doing. Burn the 350 calories 3 days a week and you could lose a lb in a month -- may sound like a long time but hey think of the last month, it went by fast, right? :) and you'd be doing it safely and sustainably.

Oh, I shouldv'e mentioned, the 1700-1600 is for LOSS. I've been maintaining around 1900-2100.

Is there any reason to lose 2 lbs??  Rather than looking at weight try looking at how in shape you are.  Are you trying to squeeze into a smaller size?  I'm not really sure what your goal is.  Losing weight just to say you weigh 2 lbs less seems silly when you're already slim.  I would focus more on weights, they will tighten you up and burn more calories on a day-to-day basis.  You may not lose weight, but you could be smaller.  Also, I'm 5'9", 24 yrs and the calcs I've done for my daily calorie intake,this site and others, to maintain without working out is around 2100 cal/day.  One pound of fat is 3500 calories.  So spread the 7000 calories calorie deficit you need over a few weeks and you shouldn't need to eat much less

Sorry forgot this--

Also, it is much more efficient to lift weights and then do cardio right after.  You will burn slightly more calories during cardio and your metabolism rate will stay higher longer after you're done working out. 

HEY GREASYGEMO

I WAS ACTUALLY READING IN THE BIGGEST LOSER MAGAZINE THAT YOU SHOULD TAKE YOU BODY WEIGHT AND MULTIPLY BY SEVEN TO GET THE PROPER CALORIE INTAKE YOU SHOULD HAVE PER DAY IN ORDER TO LOSE WIEGHT. EXAMPLE: IF YOU WEIGH 200 LBS MULTIPLY BY 7 AND YOUR DAILY CALORIE TARGET FOR WIEGHT LOSS WITH EXCERCISE IS 1400 CALORIES BUT IF YOU ARE UNDER 150 LBS THE TARGET CALORIES TO INTAKE WOULD BE 1050 WITH EXCERCISE TO LOSE WEIGHT AND FOR TWO POUNDS IT SHOULDN'T TAKE LONG. I HAVE GONE BY THIS FOR 5 DAYS  AND HAVE LOST 1.5 POUNDS JUST EATING MY DAILY CALORIES AND WITH A WALK/JOG COMBO FOR 30 MINUTES AT LEASE 5 DAYS A WEEK WITH 2 DAYS FOR LIGHT WEIGHT TRAINING. PLUS BY EATING MORE FRUITS AND VEGGIES AND WHOLE GRAIN PASTAS AND SNACKS I FEEL FULL AND CUT OFF MY EATING 2 HOURS BEFORE BED. I THINK THIS SHOULD WORK.

 

greasygemo - if you've been maintaining around 1900-2100, you should lose at 1600-1700. Give it a few weeks.

annagalloway - in my opinion, *7 is REALLY low. For someone who weighs 120 lbs that would mean eating 840 calories a day -- and that's WITH EXERCISE. The Biggest Loser show takes people who are obese and, UNDER MEDICAL SUPERVISION, may be able to handle a large calorie deficit. Someone who is only looking to lose 2 lbs SHOULD NOT go that low. That is, if you're looking to lose 2 lbs of fat. If you are looking to lose 2 lbs of water, food in your digestive system, etc, you could probably do that by fasting for a day.

And before I get yelled at -- I am OBVIOUSLY NOT SUGGESTING fasting as a method for weight loss!! I am trying to point out that it WON'T work for true fat loss. :)

hey flowerbud there is an excpetion as i stated that if you weigh less than 150 lbs you calorie intake should be 1050 calories not 840 because she weighs 125lbs. but since she does weigh 125 and that is under 150 the target would still be the same. i know it worked for me and i wasn't hungry with the healthy more fibrous low calorie foods i chose to fulfill my calorie intake. i am larger than her but so i would get more calories but i think it may work. 

1050 is still wicked low for someone who is under 150 pounds.  Below BMR, most likely. 

weigh yourself the day after working out, after 1 week of eating really clean, and after a shower. you should weigh 2lbs less then - if the scale number is all that matters.

with your routine, greasy, it should be impossible to 'become fat' 

unless, of course, your calories consist of fatty meats and nuts all day ~ heh ~ a calorie is a calorie to a certain point. when you are fit (as you are apparently) you should ensure your total fat per day is no more than 15% of your diet, and that most of these are 'good' fats.

350 calories a day? toss a step aerobics class or spinning class in there. when you really got it going on, an aerobics class fits nicely after a weight session. 

I would keel over eating that little.  I can loose eating 1700 to 2000.  Granted I have a very active job but still.  1050....forget it~!!

Isn't it one of the rules of this site to not promote diets that prescribe <1200 calories a day for women, 1500 for men?

Based on information I've seen around this site (and elsewhere), 1200 is the bare minimum your body needs to sustain itself, and that's WITHOUT physical activity. Yes, it's harder for those of us who are small, and we might lose more slowly, but we still have to be healthy about it!

Without getting too simplified, think of that 350 calories  a day as:

You sleep 7 to 9 hours  - probably.

You have 17 to 15 hours of 'awake' time.

Divide the 17 into the 350 = 20.8 calories AN HOUR (x) 17 hours; now that's going to happen if you're doing not much more than typing a commentary on this site!

If 15 is divided into 350 = 23.2 calories AN HOUR - so type faster!

I calculated:  6 hours of sleeping; 3 hours of quietly watching t.v., and the rest of the time just being on the computer = 2118 calories burned in a 24-hour day!

I don't think burning up 350 calories each day (over and above the minimum you need to maintain either your own current weight; or 'stay alive' @ 1200 calories minimum) poses a problem to anyone who's not trying to lose an excessive amount of weight (such as 50 pounds or more).

I'm 5'7" - 65 years old; weigh 129 pounds, and have weighed LESS (unfortunately as low as 103 when I was very sick), and I can still wear a size 6 ring; have tiny wrists - my shoulder-bones 'show'; my body is only a bit 'soft' from not working out (and my age), and I wouldn't even be thinking about trying to drop 3 or 4 pounds unless I had some old 'tighter clothes' I wanted to wear.  I mean by 'tight' - the ones I bought when I was so boney I was ashamed.

If your weight is evenly distributed, your total weight now is certainly at an ideal number; even 2 or 3 pounds under as I'd see it (and myself when I look in the mirror).  Diane

I also think having your life controlled by a number on a scale is pointless.  I weigh 10 lbs more than I did 2 years ago - but I wear a pant size 2 sizes smaller and its due to weigh training -- so ignore the scale for awhile and pick up the weights instead and start to lose inches especially if your BMI is well within healthy limits.  I am technically overweight by BMI standards, but I don't look nearly as "fat" as I did when I weighed this much 10 years ago and never lifted a muscle off the couch.

Original Post by annagalloway:

HEY GREASYGEMO

I WAS ACTUALLY READING IN THE BIGGEST LOSER MAGAZINE THAT YOU SHOULD TAKE YOU BODY WEIGHT AND MULTIPLY BY SEVEN TO GET THE PROPER CALORIE INTAKE YOU SHOULD HAVE PER DAY IN ORDER TO LOSE WIEGHT.

Sorry, but that is pure BS. I weigh 120 pounds; does that mean in order to lose weight I should only eat 840 calories a day? Steaming pile of bull. Maybe this would be okay for people who are very overweight, but it is downright dangerous for anyone under about 180 pounds.

Original Post by le_tigre:

Original Post by annagalloway:

HEY GREASYGEMO

I WAS ACTUALLY READING IN THE BIGGEST LOSER MAGAZINE THAT YOU SHOULD TAKE YOU BODY WEIGHT AND MULTIPLY BY SEVEN TO GET THE PROPER CALORIE INTAKE YOU SHOULD HAVE PER DAY IN ORDER TO LOSE WIEGHT.

Sorry, but that is pure BS. I weigh 120 pounds; does that mean in order to lose weight I should only eat 840 calories a day? Steaming pile of bull. Maybe this would be okay for people who are very overweight, but it is downright dangerous for anyone under about 180 pounds.

 I agree, but what anna galloway failed to specify was the fact that A) this is for people losing weight, and B) everybody UNDER 150 should still eat a minimum of 1050 or whatever it was. 

I know, I was really upset too! (I'm 123 lbs... I don't want to develop an ED by eating so little!) But after reading it 2-3 more times I realized what she had tried to say. She just didn't present her facts in a clear, concise way. That's all.

First the stats: 50 year old started at 183 on Oct 1 and am now 158 with a goal to get down to 135 lbs. 

All the sites and formulas you can find, including this one, use calculations based on the "average" person...not sure who that average person is, but just be aware that your burn number may or may not be 100% accurate.  In my case, I don't eat what it says I should be burning and for four months, I have lost 1-2 pounds a week which, according to my fat caliper, is fat, not muscle, so I am not in starvation mode.  Other sites have my BMR lower and I seem to be doing fine.  What this site does VERY well for me is help me keep to the calorie level (and nutritional level) that I want and I have never been able to do that before...I just don't eat the full amount of calories that my burn meter says I should...but yours could be accurate, so don't just cut based on me.

If you don't like running (I cannot stand it), I burn 350-400 calories on an elliptical for 30 minutes and a 5 minute cool down cycle 5 days a week and I do 3 days of strength training on top of that.  On the 3 days that I do both, I do strength first as you want to use sugars/carbs first during that part of your workout and hopefully burn more fat after that when you do your cardio...also, I could not do as much weight when I was doing cardio first as I was tired and somewhat depleted by then.

The fact that you are within 2 pounds of your goal makes me ask if that is real or water...are you actually where you want to be.  Another thought is whether or not you are overtraining...you are doing a lot more than me and if the scale isn't moving, it may be that you are doing too much (counter-intuitive, isn't it).  I have a ton more to lose than you, but it doesn't seem that you should be doing all you are doing and still staying at the same weight.  I am no expert, but I would think it would have to be not eating enough or over-training.  Also, I have not hit a plateau yet, but was told to change my workout routine (which I have not had to do yet) and reduce my carbs SOME...I love 'em and eat twice as many carbs as protein, so I would shift that some (not overdoing it though).

Not sure if any of this helps, but I wish you the best and don't get frustrated...if our bodies came off an assembly line, we would all know what to do...you have to stick with it, change some things up and find what works.