Calories Burned, VS Eaten

[PeteinVA]

So I'm burning an average of around 3800 calories a day (activities and sitting around), and eating an average of 1400 calories.

How many calories have to be burned to lose pounds?

Just curious and to be honest I know it's good but wondering if anyone else has some thoughts.

[msanjelpie]

Re: Calories Burned, VS Eaten

3500 calories = 1 lb.

How do you calculate that you are burning 3800 calories?

I only ask because running a marathon burns less than a 1000 calories:

Calories Burned through Exercise

[PeteinVA]

Re: Calories Burned, VS Eaten

Just the estimate on Fitday.com Not really calling it gospel I just see it everyday so am being thoughtful about the whole thing.

[phil h]

Re: Calories Burned, VS Eaten

A deficit of around 3500 calories will lose a pound.Not sure how you determine how many calories you expend a day.Treadmills and gym equipment generally over estimate.1400 calories is hard for me to do for long.I'm 181 and need more than that to keep hunger away and energy up.Usually 1800-2200 or so.As long as you keep your carbs really low, don't overeat, you'll lose weight steadily.For me 2 lbs a week have been plenty.But hey, it is fun to manipulate our bodies.Done that a few times myself and no harm done as long as you don't get into starvation mode, which 1400 calories won't put you there.

[PeteinVA]

Re: Calories Burned, VS Eaten

Hi Phil,

No the 1400 or so calories is fine for now. In the past I've done very low calorie diets (less than 1000) and got a lot of success out of it

You're 181 huh? Well I was 181.2 today so hopefully tomorrow I'll be less than you hhah just messin'.

Thanks for the response I appreciate it.

[liv]

Re: Calories Burned, VS Eaten

In my experience this theory of calories in, calories out has very little merit. I think I went with months with a calorie deficit without anything happening with weight. But if I change things around with what I eat I lose weight.

(And running marathons would expend more than 1000 calories - a runner expends about 100 cal per mile)

[jake1970]

Re: Calories Burned, VS Eaten

yer a few months a go i was eating very low fat and 1000 calories and not loosing and that was with training aswell,the trainer at gym said my body was in starvation mode so on his advice uped the calories to 2000 plus for 2 weeks to get my body used to eating more and then down to 1500 calories ,well i did what he said and no weight loss even though i uped the exercise and did mainly cardio ,this is why i started atkins and that is when the weight started coming down again.all people are differant and the trainer was suprised i wasnt loosing im just waiting for them to comment bout my weight loss.

[ziggy]

Re: Calories Burned, VS Eaten

calories dont really do much imo fat loss is more a hormonal balance

carbs = insulin and high insulin makes you fat

you could gorge on tons of animal fat and not gain any fat on your body if you keept your carbs low unless you were a skeleton and your body needed to gain fat then you would go to your healthy weight


no one is ment to be fat its not genetics we are all naturally supos to be lean and fit and or buff its just we ate all this crap food made by man that made us sick

iv never seen a person become fat while on atkins

and eskimos who eat just animals they are all lean

[phil h]

Re: Calories Burned, VS Eaten

I agree Ziggy except Eskimos had extremely low carb diets.Atkins is very generous in comparison except during a strict induction phase.Unlimited fat will probably cause fat gain but it should come a lot quicker than if eaten in the carb rich diet, once the fat calories are reduced.I limit my fat intake only to the point that I am full, and have continued to steadily lose weight.I am also in strict induction which keeps my carbs always below 20 gms,usually quite lower.Prior experience with atkins, I gained weight after I left induction ,eating the same amount of fat that I do now.

[ziggy]

Re: Calories Burned, VS Eaten

woops your right i forgot about the higher rungs on atkins xD ya i can see someone becomeing fat on the higher rungs

but rung 1 and induction i have never seen someone become fat there though maybe a stall at worst

and your right the eskimos diet is much lower in carbs

[PeteinVA]

Re: Calories Burned, VS Eaten

Thanks for your replies guys- insightful!

Remember the eskimos had a bit of a different lifestyle than we do. They were constantly on the move, being nomadic and were eating what was natural to their surroundings (no processed food etc). That high fat diet complimented the constant activity from dawn til dusk. Other hunter type cultures had the same very active lifestyle.

I have no problem with the concept of the rungs, again I'm just in a "safe" place with my induction diet. I've had a couple of days where I've added the 5 carbs but I'm not yet comfortable with it.

Have a great day!