Starting at the beginning of July (after falling off the wagon a bit in June) I have tightened up my regime, and now have three days per week which look a bit like this:
- Eat breakfast and lunch totalling 400-500 calories - Go to gym and burn 600 calories (450-500 on a bad day) - Have small snack (about 100 calories) - Have light dinner (chicken & veg, salmon salad, etc)
This means at least 2 x per week my Net calories tot in at about 600 (always less than 1,000).
I've also kicked some seriously bad cheese-and-wine habits on the days when I'm not excessively counting and don't go to the gym.
Consequently I'm about to go into my third week of this routine and feeling much fitter and better, but in the first week I actually gained three pounds (which I'd somehow lost whilst being off the wagon, so the gain put me squarely back on Square One) and I haven't lost a sausage since then
Would you expect this sort of regime to pay off, or am I wasting my time?
But Talkinpeace I have never eaten anything like 1859 calories on a daily basis! On my three "good" days I come in at under 1100 (gross, not net) and on a "bad" day (i.e. cheesey lunch, pub and no exercise) I'll maybe get to 1800
milktray wanna be MFP buddies? I need more friends!
Ehric what makes you say that? I have a few MNers on MFP and 500-600 calories for an hour's workout seems to be pretty standard. I aim for 600 and spread it over the exercise bike, eliptical trainer, rowing machine and treadmill.
If you are like me ...Eat more than what you are extra fruit and veg keep up the exercise and it might shift. Good luck .. its taken me a year to find out why the 'f' its not shifting and I am not eating enough!!!!,
Thanks TIP! My BMI is actually 21 - I'm 5ft6. Doubtless I am wrong about my calorie intake to some degree, but on the days where I count and gym I use MFP so I reckon I have quite a good idea. I could be wildly off about my non-gym-MFP days and have been shocked by a few things since I started counting, such as the impact of olive oil.
Oh, meant to say I only manage <1100 calories 2-3 times a week, and although I've been MFPing and gymming for about 5 months my regime was scatty until a few weeks ago when I decided to buy some scales and be more organised.
Mermaid that would be great, but I'm not currently using it- as I have a 13 week old baby & I am giving myself lots of time to recover!
I really want to get started on the wobbly tummy but just don't have the energy or bf going well enough yet to leave her. (She doesn't really nap)
I can't believe I do actually miss exercising!
During her birth I worked out I did 3000 squats (in the water pool pushing on the side for a few hours). I figured this out because I couldn't walk for the first week & had the most amazingly shaped bum! And all cellulite gone!
However I don't think I will be doing 3000 squats ever again!
talkinpeace is talkin sense as usual . Bear in mind when looking at all these figures that you need a 3,500 calorie deficit to lose 1lb of weight.
Sorry but unless you are working very very hard it is highly unlikely you are burning 600 calories between those machines, if you stayed on one machine you may have a chance but just the time lost changing between them would mean you are probably only actually working for 50 minutes or so. To do that and burn 600 calories is pretty intense work for someone who, I am guessing, is around 9 stone. The elliptical machine is particularly notorious for over-estimating calorie burn btw.
It is also likely that you are underestimating calories consumed and if you are, even by, say 200 calories a day (not much) then that would be cancelling out the calories burnt through exercise.
Having said all this...if your BMI is 21 then you probably don't really need to lose weight, although you may need to lose fat . Have you thought about weight training? This, using heavy weights, with some HIiT added in, will change your shape to one you much prefer, sculpting (not bulking) muscles and you will shrink, even if you don't lose weight. Do this alongside avoiding sugar and processed food, aiming for lowish carb, lots of lean protein and you will probably get better results more easily than calorie counting.
Also, more muscle means the opposite result to calorie restriction, calorie restriction over time means your body will adapt to working on less calories, leading to a constant battle with your appetite to keep your weight down - this gets even harder as you age and lose muscle tissue due to hormonal changes. Muscles built and maintained through weight training burn more calories, so you can eat more (within reason ) without gaining lbs. win win!
The muscle idea sounds very sensible - that's exactly how much I weigh BIWI. I felt pudgy and wibbly early this year so joined the gym and started MFPing, but it wasn't until June that I got a real shock when I went to the doctor and got weighed. I only ever get weighed at the doctor and I'd gained 5/6kg in 9 months! So I figured I needed to lose it all again to stop feeling wibbly but it was only a few weeks ago I really tightened up the regime, bought a set of scales and decided to be more serious about it.
Is there a better way of calculating calories burned than the machine estimate? I'm a bit at all the people telling me it seems too high, as it roughly adds up to the MFP estimates - e.g. it takes me just over 25 minutes on an exercise bike to burn 200 calories (according to the machine and when I try and enter those into MFP, 26 minutes equates to 202 calories. I'm quite aware that neither MFP nor the machine display are an exact science, but is there a better way? I assumed between them they'd be giving me a pretty good idea.
Sleep Obviously I don't count the time between machines in the hour! It's roughly
25 minutes on bike = 200 calories 20 minutes on elliptical trainer = 200 calories 10 minutes on rowing machine = 100 calories 10 minute run + fast-walk-cooldown on treadmill = 100 calories
Sorry mermaid, thought you meant 1 hr total. What you describe isn't so much calorie wise then. I still think it is a very poor use of time at the gym though. You would do better using your hour with a five min jog or row to warm up, 20-30 mins weights (free weights best, get some instruction if you need it) then 12-20 mins high intensity intervals, not using the effort you can sustain for 5 mins but harder, you should be desperate for one minute to end...then recover for 1-2 mins and repeat. Shorten the recovery time to one min and increase the total time spent as you get fitter. Then do 5-10 mins doing some core strength stuff-planks etc and stretching.
3-4 times a week of this plus good diet made up mainly of lots of lean protein and veg should make a difference. Try it for a month or so....
I started using weights after reading this book- smart girls do dumbbells.
Lots of research backed up info & how to lift properly so you don't do any damage.
A great plan in it to get you started.
Although I still think trx is a better workout as you are using all your body weight to some degree.
So it's really easy to make exercises harder or easier. Plus you don't need to remember what kg each exercise you are at, like you need to with free weighs or machine weights. (I have appalling memory & have to walk round the gym with my workout card every time!)
I agree with pp (on phone, told you my memory was rubbish!) that cardio isn't great for losing weight. I think it is good for your cardiovascular health ie your heart, circulation, getting the blood moving in all parts of your body.
But to tone up and be more lean- healthy eating & weights will give you much better results.