Weight loss: getting it right...?

I second the thanks. I just read through this post and, while my needs are somewhat different (ideally I'd like to lose 40lbs), the advice and numbers have been really helpful. Currently I'm training for a very long ride and about to really ramp up my training regimen from where it's been floating all winter, so I need to start thinking harder -- or maybe just more carefully -- about my caloric intake. I eat a relatively healthy diet already, but too many calories and too much fat/sugar.

Now that I'm trying to really replace fat with muscle, increasing my protein is going to be crucial. I should eat more protein anyway, I think. Too many carbs in my life... but I do love bread and rice. ;)

So thanks everyone! This thread has been helpful for me, too!

Yup, the info I got from this thread has definitely helped me! I haven't lost a lot of weight yet, but by I have started to slowly lose weight steadily, so am headed in the right direction thanks to Muirenn, Triskeliongirl and the others above. :D

After this discussion I've been keeping a much stricter eye on my calories, not so much to reduce the amount, but to make sure that I eat the same amount every day except for long rides, which seems to have helped my metabolism. Result is that any day I train my net calories stay low, but healthily so, and I don't overeat on rest days. Have also taken to using this calorie counter. It may not be more accurate, but the assumptions behind it are stated, and I have found it to be more conservative than livestrong under some circumstances (although it agrees at the high heart rate end of the scale).

Just wanted to repeat the thanks and post the link in case anyone else could use it :D

I have noticed that there is wide variability in the calculators available for weight loss. As a very short and small framed person I often run into calculators that absolutely refuse to let me have less than 1200 a day. Some of the calculators then would miscalculate how much I would lose on that 1200 a day. (Even WebMD miscalculates and shows me losing the same amount of weight no matter how much I exercise). However, I can go safely lower than 1200 a day and actually try to keep my calories ranging from 900 to 1200 a day. I mix it up a bit, hoping to "fool" my metabolism out of any risk of starvation mode. I have been losing weight at roughly a pound a week for a while now and still have enough energy to exercise, though my exercise is far from strenuous. My diet is lower carb and higher fat than traditional recommendations (which are still a matter of dispute). No bread. No rice. No pasta. No ice cream or other sweet treats except for fruit with a touch of sugar. I eat plenty of fruit and veggies. And a fair amount of meat. Including. Gasp! Bacon. :) My lipid levels are fine even with a fattier diet than I used to eat. In fact, they are improved due to weight loss.

900 calories Goldfinch! Do you ride too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kacie tri-ing

900 calories Goldfinch! Do you ride too?

---

900 would be a rare day. I am only 4' 11". I am working on fitness after being out of shape for years. I ride most days, swim or walk. But what I do will not compare to what a fit person does in energy expenditure.

Yesterday I rode 10 miles and had about a 1200 calorie day. Today is cold and windy and I am not sure how much I will ride, beyond the one mile I did over to the grocery store and back. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goldfinch

900 would be a rare day. I am only 4' 11". I am working on fitness after being out of shape for years. I ride most days, swim or walk. But what I do will not compare to what a fit person does in energy expenditure.

Yesterday I rode 10 miles and had about a 1200 calorie day. Today is cold and windy and I am not sure how much I will ride, beyond the one mile I did over to the grocery store and back. :)

---

All I know is that when I was starting my weight loss journey, I burned more calories in the same activities than I do now after having lost 55 pounds - at least according to my heart rate monitor. Glad to hear that 900 calorie days are rare, I've burned more than that in a single bike ride :eek:

I am barely 5' 1" and I don't think I could survive on 900 calories, either. I am not really strict about counting, but I would say I eat about 2,000 a day, maybe 1800 on days when I don't exercise. As I get older, it's definite balance of the kind of exercise I do, the intensity, and how many carbs I eat.
The only time in my life I had to lose weight (other than after my pregnancies) I lost 25 pounds by changing the way I ate (no junk food, not too much meat, lots of fruits and veggies) and starting to exercise. But, that exercise was mild compared to what I do now. I've never gone back to "bad" eating, but I go out a lot and I love to cook. For years, I controlled my weight by intense exercise, but that doesn't work so much now; I need to pay attention to the food part of the equation.

I am 5'3 in my stocking feet, and if my net calorie intake drops below 1200 calories, even when not exercising, I will either gain weight or just stop losing. With exercise I need to be careful to not allow my net calories to drop much below that - I know my HRM calorie calculation is an approximation so I assume that it runs 20% high on calorie use estimation and proceed accordingly.

Goldfinch, have you had a chance to discuss this with a dietitian? Obviously you are reaching your weight loss goals, but you want to make certain you aren't setting yourself up for any long-term issues with consuming too few calories for your activities. Everyone is different of course, but I would be starving if I only had 1,200 calories on a day when I had rode 10 miles, let along longer. Consuming too few calories can lead to your body burning muscle and you don't want that.

For me, after loosing 55 pounds in a little over a year, my weight loss has slowed to an agonizing speed - which means I have to focus even more on the content of my calories as well as the number of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crankin

I am barely 5' 1" and I don't think I could survive on 900 calories, either.

---

I can't survive on it on long term, my metabolic rate is higher than that. But I can have a range of calories I consume over time and the average will be much higher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catrin

Goldfinch, have you had a chance to discuss this with a dietitian? Obviously you are reaching your weight loss goals, but you want to make certain you aren't setting yourself up for any long-term issues with consuming too few calories for your activities. Everyone is different of course, but I would be starving if I only had 1,200 calories on a day when I had rode 10 miles, let along longer. Consuming too few calories can lead to your body burning muscle and you don't want that.

For me, after loosing 55 pounds in a little over a year, my weight loss has slowed to an agonizing speed - which means I have to focus even more on the content of my calories as well as the number of them.

---

Because of my background I am fairly well educated on the issues and am fine with the 1200 calorie day and even with some 900 calorie days. I pay close attention to nutrition and stay away from filler foods. Keep in mind that I am small framed and very short. I am older. My energy outputs even at the same heart rate is not going to be close to the output of a young fit person.

Weight loss slows as you lose weight because you have less body mass to support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catrin

All I know is that when I was starting my weight loss journey, I burned more calories in the same activities than I do now after having lost 55 pounds - at least according to my heart rate monitor. Glad to hear that 900 calorie days are rare, I've burned more than that in a single bike ride :eek:

---

When figuring out how many calories you burn how much you weigh is a factor. The heart rate monitors that factor in weight, height, age and sex are likely the most accurate. But heart rate monitors have a reputation for overestimating calories burned. There are factors that vary for individuals that they have to estimate based on the information given. They you get estimates layered on estimates, with increasing inaccuracy.

I think monitors are more useful for determining relative effort. One day you burn "a lot" another day "not so much." :)

I don't use monitors at all. I just try to get in a half hour to an hour of exercise a day and stay off my rear for several hours. Given that my energy is fine and I am not losing weight too fast, I think that I am hitting targets close enough. Research shows that exercise is not a big factor in weight loss. Unfortunately, exercise makes people hungry so they tend to eat a bit more. But exercise should be done for its own fitness benefits and to maintain muscle mass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goldfinch

I don't use monitors at all. I just try to get in a half hour to an hour of exercise a day and stay off my rear for several hours. Given that my energy is fine and I am not losing weight too fast, I think that I am hitting targets close enough. Research shows that exercise is not a big factor in weight loss. Unfortunately, exercise makes people hungry so they tend to eat a bit more. But exercise should be done for its own fitness benefits.

---

Certainly, which is why I assume my HRM is about 20% high on short ride days (<20 miles) and 10-15% high on long ride days (currently rides >2.5 hours), but I also know my true metabolic rate. I have a very high activity level - and it true that exercise is good for other things that weight loss, but your body still needs the right kind/amount of fuel so that you can do what you need/want to do. Intense exercise and a strict diet is how I control my diabetes.

Obviously your approach is working for you, and that is what counts :) My jaw just dropped when I saw that 900 calorie estimation.