Weight Loss
Moderators: coach_k, Mollybygolly, spoiled_candy, devilish_patsy, nycgirl


Walking 20 miles a week and not losing


Quote  |  Reply

I have been walking/jogging for a good month and a half The last 3 weeks i have bumped up my workouts and have gotten to 20 miles a week. i am working out everyday of the week some days harder then others. I have cut my intake of food and i have seen almost 2 inches come off my belly or rather my backside of my belly but the numbers on the scale are going now where and maybe even up... my only motivation that remains is that my clothes are fitting a bit better. Does anyone know what i am doing wrong?

37 Replies (last)

Hi there! This information really helped me. It's not a diet despite its name. Just information that I have nothing to do with but it helps to get an idea of calorie burn and intake. Hope it helps.

 

http://www.theloseweightdiet.com/lose-weight1 .html

To figure out how many calories to eat and burn, and how much to exercise, you need to see a registered dietitian. (Or, a doctor.) Don't do what an internet site tells you to do. CC told me to eat 1300 calories a day, but even for me (small frame, short), according to my dietitian, that's too little.

If you can't afford it, many community centers offer similar services for free. (Universities often do as well, if you're a student.)

Try to rely less on a website, more on doctors who can give you individualized information.

Are you telling me 1300 is too high? I beg to differ, because anything lower than that would be ridiculous. Are you suggesting I eat below that? Because, I am sure, you know exactly what you're talking about... :/

Edited Sep 09 2010 00:00 by smw

Wow. I feel very bad for you.

And to respond to one of your other posts on this thread, BMR is not what you burn in a day - it's your basal metabolic rate, and you would need to multiply it by an activity multiplier to figure out how much you actually burn.

Edited Sep 09 2010 00:00 by smw
Original Post by willic03:
To lose 2lbs a week, you want to be left with 615 calories each day.  Less for more weight loss.  You can do this by eating less or exercising more.  Say you ate 1200 calories today and burned 700 during a workout.  You are left with 500 calories.  You cut 1115 from your BMR of 1615.  You could eat 1000 calories today and burn 500 during a workout and end with the same number, 1115.  Seriously, check out My Calorie Counter.  It does the math for you and gives you a number at the end of the day.  The website also has menus for different calorie goals so you don't have to check caloric content.  I've never used them but I've seen them.

You don't lose 2 pounds a week by being "left with" 615 net calories per day.

And there's no way to eat 1000 calories, burn 500 working out, and be left with 1115 calories for the day.

If I've misunderstood you completely, please clarify your math for me.

To lose 1 pound per week, you need to eat 500 less calories than you burn, every day - to add up to the 3500 calories that it takes to gain or lose 1 pound of weight.  You could burn 1700 and eat 1200, or you could burn 3000 and eat 2500.   Losing 2 pounds a week is harder, as it requires a 1000 calorie per day deficit, and may not be healthy depending on someone's individual situation.

Also, THIS site also does the math for you - isn't that the point of CC?  Log your food and activities?  The menus on the other site sound like a potentially useful idea for some people, although I like more freedom in my day.

Last thought....telling someone that 1300 calories a day is "weight gain waiting to happen" is just nonsense.  As long as they're burning more than 1300 calories per day, they'll be losing weight.  I lost almost 80 pounds eating 1500-1800+ calories per day.

#26  
Quote  |  Reply
Original Post by amethystgirl:

Wow. I feel very bad for you.

And to respond to one of your other posts on this thread, BMR is not what you burn in a day - it's your basal metabolic rate, and you would need to multiply it by an activity multiplier to figure out how much you actually burn.

 

Edited Sep 09 2010 00:01 by smw
#27  
Quote  |  Reply

Amethystgirl -

No need to feel badly for me - or was that intended to be an insult?!  Really.  Relax a bit and reread my earlier post.  I never said, "BMR is what you burn in a day."  I said, "Your BMR is the amount of calories you need to maintain your current weight at (your current) activity level.  What I need to stay alive."  I defined BMR correctly.

Radicalfeminist -

Actually, yes, I do know a lot about weight loss and nutrition.  Although I am RN (not a dietitian or MD), I have dedicated a tremendous amount of time to studying exercise, weight loss and nutrition.  I can also admit when I am wrong.  I should have picked my wording a bit better and given more consideration to what you said.  You are a short, small female and I'll guess you are active but not trying to lose weight.  1300 is your BMR and a good number for you.  Obviously, if you were trying to lose weight, you'd want your goal to be lower than 1300.

Lildutchgirl79 -

Yes, my math above was correct.  Mandigurl's BMR is 1615.  To lose 2 pounds a week she would have to create a caloric deficit of 1000 calories a day from her BMR.  1615 - 1000 = 615.   

You misunderstood or I was not clear enough on my example.  I didn't say, "be left with 1115 calories."  I said, "end with the same number, 1115" referring to the prior example.  Mandigurl's BMR is 1615.  Say she consumed 1000 calories and burned 500 calories.  1000 - 500 = 500  500 + 615 (calories left) = 1115.  Regardless of your interpretation, Mandigurl got it and even said, "I think I have everything down."

There are a million ways to say the same thing.  We were making the same point but wording a little differently.  Eat 500 less calories than you burn or burn 500 more calories than you eat.  Same thing.  2 pounds a week is obviously more difficult but is still a healthy goal.

Yes, "THIS" site does do the math for you but perhaps some people have difficulty with the function.  That's why I suggested the other website.  Clearly, I use both.  I agree with you.  I usually don't want pre-planned meals.

I've already commented on my poor wording and lack of consideration regarding the 1300 calories a day.  Sure, as long as someone is burning more than 1300 calories every day, they will lose weight.  For the average short, small female, over 1300 calories burned would be tough.  Remember calories burned varies by weight.  A 120lb female burns fewers calories walking a mile than a 170lb female simply because the 170lb female has more to move.  That fact is frustrating because the more weight I lose, the harder I have to work at it.  Yes, depending on your starting weight, you could lose 80lbs eating up to 1800+ calories a day but for many people, 1800 calories is simply too many to lose weight.  In Mandigurl's case, 1800 calories would be too many to lose weight walking 3-4 miles daily since her BMR is 1615. 

I think that covered everyone!  Good luck to you all in your weight loss journey!! 

Original Post by willic03:

Amethystgirl -

No need to feel badly for me - or was that intended to be an insult?!  Really.  Relax a bit and reread my earlier post.  I never said, "BMR is what you burn in a day."  I said, "Your BMR is the amount of calories you need to maintain your current weight at (your current) activity level.  What I need to stay alive."  I defined BMR correctly.

Radicalfeminist -

Actually, yes, I do know a lot about weight loss and nutrition.  Although I am RN (not a dietitian or MD), I have dedicated a tremendous amount of time to studying exercise, weight loss and nutrition.  I can also admit when I am wrong.  I should have picked my wording a bit better and given more consideration to what you said.  You are a short, small female and I'll guess you are active but not trying to lose weight.  1300 is your BMR and a good number for you.  Obviously, if you were trying to lose weight, you'd want your goal to be lower than 1300.

Lildutchgirl79 -

Yes, my math above was correct.  Mandigurl's BMR is 1615.  To lose 2 pounds a week she would have to create a caloric deficit of 1000 calories a day from her BMR.  1615 - 1000 = 615.   

You misunderstood or I was not clear enough on my example.  I didn't say, "be left with 1115 calories."  I said, "end with the same number, 1115" referring to the prior example.  Mandigurl's BMR is 1615.  Say she consumed 1000 calories and burned 500 calories.  1000 - 500 = 500  500 + 615 (calories left) = 1115.  Regardless of your interpretation, Mandigurl got it and even said, "I think I have everything down."

There are a million ways to say the same thing.  We were making the same point but wording a little differently.  Eat 500 less calories than you burn or burn 500 more calories than you eat.  Same thing.  2 pounds a week is obviously more difficult but is still a healthy goal.

Yes, "THIS" site does do the math for you but perhaps some people have difficulty with the function.  That's why I suggested the other website.  Clearly, I use both.  I agree with you.  I usually don't want pre-planned meals.

I've already commented on my poor wording and lack of consideration regarding the 1300 calories a day.  Sure, as long as someone is burning more than 1300 calories every day, they will lose weight.  For the average short, small female, over 1300 calories burned would be tough.  Remember calories burned varies by weight.  A 120lb female burns fewers calories walking a mile than a 170lb female simply because the 170lb female has more to move.  That fact is frustrating because the more weight I lose, the harder I have to work at it.  Yes, depending on your starting weight, you could lose 80lbs eating up to 1800+ calories a day but for many people, 1800 calories is simply too many to lose weight.  In Mandigurl's case, 1800 calories would be too many to lose weight walking 3-4 miles daily since her BMR is 1615. 

I think that covered everyone!  Good luck to you all in your weight loss journey!! 

I guess your wording was just terrible (no offense :P). And I am small (5'1", small/med frame), but I still shouldn't go under 1300. (My BMR is 1431.) It's higher than you guessed likely because I'm heavier than you guessed (different meaning of the word "small").

Just make sure you are not going under your BMR when you figure out your deficit.  That is the calories your body needs for basic functions and if you go below that you will actually slow down your metabolism and wt loss.  Some people just can't do a 1000 cal deficit in a healthy way.  I can't, my BMR is too low, around 1466.

How does CC figure out how much to eat in a day? It tells me to eat 1300 calories, but my BMR is 1431. Did their computing system estimate too low?

My doctor told me to go to some people he works with they charge 60 bucks a week and tell you what to eat. i dont like that never have never will. If i ate 1300 calories a day i would gain weight i know this from experience but thats just me we are ALL different. Then again i have never worked out as much as i am now which will probably require more calories to keep up with it!!

Also i have another question if anyone cares to answer?

In the daily analysis does the intake and outtake account for my fittness and calories i imput for the day? or do i have to deduct that myself?

Original Post by mandigurl:
If i ate 1300 calories a day i would gain weight i know this from experience but thats just me we are ALL different. Then again i have never worked out as much as i am now which will probably require more calories to keep up with it!!

Also i have another question if anyone cares to answer?

In the daily analysis does the intake and outtake account for my fittness and calories i imput for the day? or do i have to deduct that myself?

If your BMR is 1615 you would not gain weight eating 1300.  BMR is how many calories your body needs if you did nothing but lay in bed all 24 hours of the day.  If your BMR is 1615, and you're not a bedridden invalid, you burn 1615 calories PLUS whatever you burn doing your daily activities.

1300 is less than 1615.  That's a deficit; you should lose weight.  If your BMR is 1615 and you are gaining weight when you eat 1300, you have either miscalculated how many calories you burn or how many calories you're eating, or you've severely damaged your metabolism.  We are all different, but there are some basics that apply to everyone no matter what.

If you put all your info into CC (age, weight, height, activity level) then keep in mind that the number listed in your "Burn Meter" on the main page is NOT your BMR.  It's the total number of calories you burn per day, which is higher than your BMR.

The "Eat Meter" next to it counts the calories you log.

If the number of calories you eat is less than the number of calories you burn, you will lose weight.  

When you look at the "Analysis", the graph will show you your deficit for each day.  It will take into account the number of calories you burn (based on your height, weight & age, your activity level, and any additional activity you entered for the day) and the number of calories you ate (based on your food log).

What is your height/weight/age?

Original Post by willic03:

Amethystgirl -

No need to feel badly for me - or was that intended to be an insult?!  Really.  Relax a bit and reread my earlier post.  I never said, "BMR is what you burn in a day."  I said, "Your BMR is the amount of calories you need to maintain your current weight at (your current) activity level.  What I need to stay alive."  I defined BMR correctly.

So you are somewhere between bed-ridden and in a coma?

Because that's what BMR is. The amount of calories you need to maintain your current weight at your current activity level is the same as how much you burn in a day. Unless you are less active than 'sedentary', you aren't going to maintain your weight eating your BMR.

I don't really think she was trying to insult you; that doesn't mean that she can't question the information you're providing though!!  

You did indicate that "Your BMR is the amount of calories you need to maintain your current weight at (your current) activity level.  What I need to stay alive."

You also told Mandigurl that ...."you should pay someone to calculate your BMR.  1300 calories for a "small frame, short" female would be accurate if the female was very, very active or had a metabolic disorder requiring a higher calorie consumption.  Otherwise, 1300 calories is a weight gain waiting to happen."

You think her BMR, plus her 20 miles of walking every week, has her burning less than 1300 calories per day?  How exactly did you figure that out?    This site puts her (5'2", 180lbs, and I guessed 25 years) at a BMR of just over 1600 calories a day.  Are you using a different calculation?

 

Edited Sep 09 2010 00:04 by smw
#35  
Quote  |  Reply
Original Post by lildutchgirl79:

I don't really think she was trying to insult you; that doesn't mean that she can't question the information you're providing though!!  

You did indicate that "Your BMR is the amount of calories you need to maintain your current weight at (your current) activity level.  What I need to stay alive."

You also told Mandigurl that ...."you should pay someone to calculate your BMR.  1300 calories for a "small frame, short" female would be accurate if the female was very, very active or had a metabolic disorder requiring a higher calorie consumption.  Otherwise, 1300 calories is a weight gain waiting to happen."

You think her BMR,
plus her 20 miles of walking every week, has her burning less than 1300 calories per day?  How exactly did you figure that out?    This site puts her (5'2", 180lbs, and I guessed 25 years) at a BMR of just over 1600 calories a day.  Are you using a different calculation?

Amethystgirl was not simply questioning my post.  Questioning and commenting is the intended purpose of a forum;  it is helpful and healthy.  Her intention was to be rude and it was accomplished.

My definition of BMR is absolutely correct!  BMR is the number of calories needed to keep the body at the current baseline - no changes in calorie consumption or exercise.  I stated I figured my BMR based on a sedentary lifestyle.  This is because I don't want exercise calculated into the number.  I set exercise goals beginning at a 0 activity level.  Routine daily activities are like an exercise freebie this way.

I told Mandigurl to pay someone to calculate her BMR "if she had money to waste."  I would never encourage someone to pay for BMR when there are so many free calculators available online.  I've also already recommented on my 1300 calorie comment.  As Radicalfeminist pointed out, it depends on individual interpretation of a short, small female.  For Mandigurl, a 1300 calorie diet along with 20 miles/week, should result in a 1lb/week weight loss.

I've never calculated Madigurl's BMR.  I based my comments regarding Mandigurl's BMR on the number she gave me, which was 1615.  I also did not advise Mandigurl on how many calories she should consume.  I provided 2 examples of how to calculate a calorie deficit based on BMR, consumption and exercise.  They were just examples!  However, I will stand behind my point regarding mileage.  A 4 mile a day walk is quite reasonable.  If she is currently getting 20 miles a week and is not losing weight, the extra mile a day could be what she needs to bump her body into weight-loss gear. 

As I explained before, to lose 2 pounds a week, which is a healthy weight loss, there must be a calorie deficit of 1000 daily.  Someone with a BMR of 1615 would need to end each day with 615 calories free for body use.  (Yes, this would be lower than the BMR but the idea is to force the body to use stored calories/fat rather than use freshly-consumed calories.)  615 free calories could be accomplished with a combination of exercise and calorie cutting, which is what my previous examples were showing.

 

Original Post by willic03:

Original Post by lildutchgirl79:

I don't really think she was trying to insult you; that doesn't mean that she can't question the information you're providing though!!  

You did indicate that "Your BMR is the amount of calories you need to maintain your current weight at (your current) activity level.  What I need to stay alive."

You also told Mandigurl that ...."you should pay someone to calculate your BMR.  1300 calories for a "small frame, short" female would be accurate if the female was very, very active or had a metabolic disorder requiring a higher calorie consumption.  Otherwise, 1300 calories is a weight gain waiting to happen."

You think her BMR,
plus her 20 miles of walking every week, has her burning less than 1300 calories per day?  How exactly did you figure that out?    This site puts her (5'2", 180lbs, and I guessed 25 years) at a BMR of just over 1600 calories a day.  Are you using a different calculation?

Amethystgirl was not simply questioning my post.  Questioning and commenting is the intended purpose of a forum;  it is helpful and healthy.  Her intention was to be rude and it was accomplished.

My definition of BMR is absolutely correct!  BMR is the number of calories needed to keep the body at the current baseline - no changes in calorie consumption or exercise.  I stated I figured my BMR based on a sedentary lifestyle.  This is because I don't want exercise calculated into the number.  I set exercise goals beginning at a 0 activity level.  Routine daily activities are like an exercise freebie this way.

I told Mandigurl to pay someone to calculate her BMR "if she had money to waste."  I would never encourage someone to pay for BMR when there are so many free calculators available online.  I've also already recommented on my 1300 calorie comment.  As Radicalfeminist pointed out, it depends on individual interpretation of a short, small female.  For Mandigurl, a 1300 calorie diet along with 20 miles/week, should result in a 1lb/week weight loss.

I've never calculated Madigurl's BMR.  I based my comments regarding Mandigurl's BMR on the number she gave me, which was 1615.  I also did not advise Mandigurl on how many calories she should consume.  I provided 2 examples of how to calculate a calorie deficit based on BMR, consumption and exercise.  They were just examples!  However, I will stand behind my point regarding mileage.  A 4 mile a day walk is quite reasonable.  If she is currently getting 20 miles a week and is not losing weight, the extra mile a day could be what she needs to bump her body into weight-loss gear. 

As I explained before, to lose 2 pounds a week, which is a healthy weight loss, there must be a calorie deficit of 1000 daily.  Someone with a BMR of 1615 would need to end each day with 615 calories free for body use.  (Yes, this would be lower than the BMR but the idea is to force the body to use stored calories/fat rather than use freshly-consumed calories.)  615 free calories could be accomplished with a combination of exercise and calorie cutting, which is what my previous examples were showing.

 

From her posts, I had a suspicion that Mandigurl may have confused her BMR with what her CC Burn Meter shows.  It seems like a risky idea to give her advice on a specific calorie intake without asking her about her height/weight/age/activity level.

If one's calorie intake is pretty close to the recommended minimum, I also think it's a bad idea to be playing fast & loose with your calorie burn by ignoring the couple hundred calories burned with even sedentary daily activities.  There is a point where calorie intake is just too low for you to get all the nutrients your body needs, and if it's necessary for someone to get near that point in order to lose weight, I'm of the opinion that they should be careful and accurate with their intake/burn.

I guess I'm also not understanding where you got the info indicating that 1300 would be an accurate BMR for a "small frame, short" female who was "very, very active or had a metabolic disorder".  I used this BMR calculator to do the BMR for a 5'1 female, 100lbs, 30 years old....comes up with true BMR of 1235 at total rest....1482 at sedentary.  By the time you get up to "very, very active", that tiny little woman is burning 2130 (a significant difference from 1300!).  Can you let me know how you do your figures?

If her BMR is 1615, and she wants to lose 2 lbs a week, are you indicating in your last paragraph that she needs to take in only 615 calories per day?  I agree that would be a 1000 calorie per day deficit, and that it should in theory produce a 2lb per week weight loss....however from what I have read, I do not think that is a safe intake level.

#37  
Quote  |  Reply
Original Post by lildutchgirl79:

Original Post by willic03:

Original Post by lildutchgirl79:

I don't really think she was trying to insult you; that doesn't mean that she can't question the information you're providing though!!  

You did indicate that "Your BMR is the amount of calories you need to maintain your current weight at (your current) activity level.  What I need to stay alive."

You also told Mandigurl that ...."you should pay someone to calculate your BMR.  1300 calories for a "small frame, short" female would be accurate if the female was very, very active or had a metabolic disorder requiring a higher calorie consumption.  Otherwise, 1300 calories is a weight gain waiting to happen."

You think her BMR,
plus her 20 miles of walking every week, has her burning less than 1300 calories per day?  How exactly did you figure that out?    This site puts her (5'2", 180lbs, and I guessed 25 years) at a BMR of just over 1600 calories a day.  Are you using a different calculation?

Amethystgirl was not simply questioning my post.  Questioning and commenting is the intended purpose of a forum;  it is helpful and healthy.  Her intention was to be rude and it was accomplished.

My definition of BMR is absolutely correct!  BMR is the number of calories needed to keep the body at the current baseline - no changes in calorie consumption or exercise.  I stated I figured my BMR based on a sedentary lifestyle.  This is because I don't want exercise calculated into the number.  I set exercise goals beginning at a 0 activity level.  Routine daily activities are like an exercise freebie this way.

I told Mandigurl to pay someone to calculate her BMR "if she had money to waste."  I would never encourage someone to pay for BMR when there are so many free calculators available online.  I've also already recommented on my 1300 calorie comment.  As Radicalfeminist pointed out, it depends on individual interpretation of a short, small female.  For Mandigurl, a 1300 calorie diet along with 20 miles/week, should result in a 1lb/week weight loss.

I've never calculated Madigurl's BMR.  I based my comments regarding Mandigurl's BMR on the number she gave me, which was 1615.  I also did not advise Mandigurl on how many calories she should consume.  I provided 2 examples of how to calculate a calorie deficit based on BMR, consumption and exercise.  They were just examples!  However, I will stand behind my point regarding mileage.  A 4 mile a day walk is quite reasonable.  If she is currently getting 20 miles a week and is not losing weight, the extra mile a day could be what she needs to bump her body into weight-loss gear. 

As I explained before, to lose 2 pounds a week, which is a healthy weight loss, there must be a calorie deficit of 1000 daily.  Someone with a BMR of 1615 would need to end each day with 615 calories free for body use.  (Yes, this would be lower than the BMR but the idea is to force the body to use stored calories/fat rather than use freshly-consumed calories.)  615 free calories could be accomplished with a combination of exercise and calorie cutting, which is what my previous examples were showing.

 

From her posts, I had a suspicion that Mandigurl may have confused her BMR with what her CC Burn Meter shows.  It seems like a risky idea to give her advice on a specific calorie intake without asking her about her height/weight/age/activity level.

If one's calorie intake is pretty close to the recommended minimum, I also think it's a bad idea to be playing fast & loose with your calorie burn by ignoring the couple hundred calories burned with even sedentary daily activities.  There is a point where calorie intake is just too low for you to get all the nutrients your body needs, and if it's necessary for someone to get near that point in order to lose weight, I'm of the opinion that they should be careful and accurate with their intake/burn.

I guess I'm also not understanding where you got the info indicating that 1300 would be an accurate BMR for a "small frame, short" female who was "very, very active or had a metabolic disorder".  I used this BMR calculator to do the BMR for a 5'1 female, 100lbs, 30 years old....comes up with true BMR of 1235 at total rest....1482 at sedentary.  By the time you get up to "very, very active", that tiny little woman is burning 2130 (a significant difference from 1300!).  Can you let me know how you do your figures?

If her BMR is 1615, and she wants to lose 2 lbs a week, are you indicating in your last paragraph that she needs to take in only 615 calories per day?  I agree that would be a 1000 calorie per day deficit, and that it should in theory produce a 2lb per week weight loss....however from what I have read, I do not think that is a safe intake level.

37 Replies (last)
Advertisement
Advertisement