Calories question.

[Kframe]

Hey guys. As most know, I am on a weight loss journey. So far it is going very slow, but steady. This question has been on my mind for a while now, and I have not yet found a good answer to it. So I posit it here.

Do I subtract my calories burned during exercise from the total I ate for the day?

As of right now, for the whole day I ate 1385 calories. That is breakfast, lunch and dinner. Then after dinner I went and worked out. Did my shoulder routine, then 45 minutes on the elliptical machine. 141 average heart rate, max 155bpm, with 620 calories burned. So the question is, do I subtract calories I burnt working out from my daily consumed total? I ask because right now I am starting to get hungry again, but I really don't want to blow it. Lost 5lbs last week. Want to keep it going.

I do 4x8 squats/rows/bench on Mondays and Fridays. I do 4x8 shoulders and 45 mins cardio on Tuesday and Thursdays.

I also noticed that, since I reorganized my diet(reduced intake from 2700 to around 1300-1400), and went vegan, lifting has gotten a lot harder. I still have the strength, but my endurance, the reps got harder. I failed my 4th set on the bench yesterday! (200lbs 4x8) Almost failed on my last set of shoulders today.

I thought muscles stored energy? Its almost like I blew through a smaller supply really quickly.

My numbers for lifts. Bench 200lbs 4x8 Shoulder press. 130lbs 4x8, squat. 250lbs 4x8. Row. 140 4x8. Now the row, the trainer advised me to start over from a light weight because my form sucked. I was not touching chest. It look more like a shitty dead lift.. It was at 200lbs, but on their advice I started over.

Thanks for the help guys!

 

[Badger67]

"I also noticed that, since I reorganized my diet(reduced intake from 2700 to around 1300-1400), and went vegan, lifting has gotten a lot harder."

Two reasons for this:
1. Calorie reduction by half. Which isn't necessary.
2. Vegan (seriously). Incomplete proteins and possibly not enough (lacking Leucine, isoleucine and valine especially for MPS).

These two reasons are why lifting sucks for you.

To use simple ballpark numbers. Let's say you ever exercised, and maintained on 2000 calories. You can either create a deficit by reducing 500 calories, or, exercising 500 calories off. In this regard, i would choose exercise, as your body will be able to do more with the calories present, for maintaining muscle, recovery, and hormone profiles.

In your current situation, I would advise increasing your calories by 250-350 Preferably from 80% protein, the other 20% from carbs or fats pending on what is the lowest in your diet, or palatable. 5lb a week is a bit much, a good loss for obese people is 2-3lbs, and for fit people or people relatively average fit, 0.5-1.5lbs . These are sustainable, attainable, and wont leave you feeling dragged down. It's okay to tone down the speed of fat loss, especially if you aren't some elite body builder, power lifter, or competitive weight class athlete currently on the cusp of a meet.

 

[Kframe]

"I also noticed that, since I reorganized my diet(reduced intake from 2700 to around 1300-1400), and went vegan, lifting has gotten a lot harder."

Two reasons for this:
1. Calorie reduction by half. Which isn't necessary.
2. Vegan (seriously). Incomplete proteins and possibly not enough (lacking Leucine, isoleucine and valine especially for MPS).

These two reasons are why lifting sucks for you.

To use simple ballpark numbers. Let's say you ever exercised, and maintained on 2000 calories. You can either create a deficit by reducing 500 calories, or, exercising 500 calories off. In this regard, i would choose exercise, as your body will be able to do more with the calories present, for maintaining muscle, recovery, and hormone profiles.

In your current situation, I would advise increasing your calories by 250-350 Preferably from 80% protein, the other 20% from carbs or fats pending on what is the lowest in your diet, or palatable. 5lb a week is a bit much, a good loss for obese people is 2-3lbs, and for fit people or people relatively average fit, 0.5-1.5lbs . These are sustainable, attainable, and wont leave you feeling dragged down. It's okay to tone down the speed of fat loss, especially if you aren't some elite body builder, power lifter, or competitive weight class athlete currently on the cusp of a meet.

So to be clear, is that a yes or no on subtracting work out burned calories from total daily consumed calories?

My reason for wanting it to be soo quick is, I saw first hand the results. My friend, weighed 100lbs more then me. 430lbs. He lost 200lbs in a year, eating what I am eating.. He did no lifting and does tons of cardio. I am 36, and have been obese my entire life. I am sick of it, and want it off sooner rather then later. I want his results. He is soo much healthier, and can actually do things now..

I eat about 40g protein a day right now. Some days more. I do mix and match to get a complete profile. I eat a lot of soy too, and that is a complete protein. I do not add fats in any way to my food. No cooking oils, ect. I could add more protein, but that would spike my calorie numbers. Going to cook about 30g protein worth of beans tomorrow, and have Tofu scramble for breakfast.

My question is, why is it so important for me to raise my calories intake? I thought that at my size, the most important thing was to get the weight off, and all the associated health problems that comes from it?

When I was at 2700, I was not loosing weight at all. Stayed right were I was for months.. Strength went up, slowly but the weight never came off.

Not trying to argue with you. Just trying to get out my feelings on this, as I don't understand much of this Hell the only reason I lift is to keep the muscle I have while I cut.

You are right I am not an elite anything. Just a fatass who is tired of being a fatass. I'm willing to kill myself to get it.

 

[Badger67]

Well, You shouldn't subtract it, that would take you down lower than 13-1400. Tis bad. That is leaving your body with like 8-900 calories to do anything.

Losing weight that quickly at 5lbs a week isn't healthy nor sustainable. If you're in the 300lb range at lets say 5'10" frame, you can afford a 2lb a week loss for a bit, but you will eventually stall out. At that point, you will have no caloric spares to reduce from, without increasing exercise intensity a lot, but wont have much calories to recover.

You need more calories to recover, build muscle, keep hormones in a normal flux. You have enough fat reserves that having a caloric intake plus the exercise is way more than enough. Your workouts suck now. They wont be enjoyable, and discipline will fade quickly.

Realistically, you should have just started at 2000-2200 and stuck it there for a few months.

40g a day is literally nothing. You are going to lose muscle at some point if you havent already, and recovery will suck balls and balls. Balls. Just by being active, and gradually reducing calories, you would improve health biomarkers easily.

Fat is necessary for a healthy hormone profile such as testosterone levels, FSH, and so on. Eliminating it out of the diet is literally foolish for any long term goal, short term (few weeks, meh whatever). Soy raises estrogen mildly, and eventually blocks thyroid function (if you want to lose weight, you need a healthy thyroid, it helps greatly in regulating your metabolism, it also needs calories to do this).

You can lose weight at a good pace healthily without being this drastic. I strongly urge you to see a dietician who works with people who exercise well enough.

 

[My2Cents]

Permanent weight loss is a marathon, not a sprint.

 

[560ti]

Well, You shouldn't subtract it, that would take you down lower than 13-1400. Tis bad. That is leaving your body with like 8-900 calories to do anything.

Losing weight that quickly at 5lbs a week isn't healthy nor sustainable. If you're in the 300lb range at lets say 5'10" frame, you can afford a 2lb a week loss for a bit, but you will eventually stall out. At that point, you will have no caloric spares to reduce from, without increasing exercise intensity a lot, but wont have much calories to recover.

You need more calories to recover, build muscle, keep hormones in a normal flux. You have enough fat reserves that having a caloric intake plus the exercise is way more than enough. Your workouts suck now. They wont be enjoyable, and discipline will fade quickly.

Realistically, you should have just started at 2000-2200 and stuck it there for a few months.

40g a day is literally nothing. You are going to lose muscle at some point if you havent already, and recovery will suck balls and balls. Balls. Just by being active, and gradually reducing calories, you would improve health biomarkers easily.

Fat is necessary for a healthy hormone profile such as testosterone levels, FSH, and so on. Eliminating it out of the diet is literally foolish for any long term goal, short term (few weeks, meh whatever). Soy raises estrogen mildly, and eventually blocks thyroid function (if you want to lose weight, you need a healthy thyroid, it helps greatly in regulating your metabolism, it also needs calories to do this).

You can lose weight at a good pace healthily without being this drastic. I strongly urge you to see a dietician who works with people who exercise well enough.

Literally everything Badger is telling you is correct.

This plan your on is a 100% disaster. A 200lb+ male who does high weight powerlifting should not be eating 40grams of protein a day (if I where you there's no freaking way I would consume less than 100grams).

Calories is too low. Low 2000s is a good starting point. With the right workouts you should still loose significant weight while having enough energy to keep your energy/metabolism high

I thought that at my size, the most important thing was to get the weight off, and all the associated health problems that comes from it?

Low calorie diet is increasing the health problems. It's slowing your metabolism down (meaning your body is burning less calories) and its potentially causing your body to consume muscle storage for energy.

You need to up the calories (add healthy fats and protein).

You need to change the cardio as well. Sprints is the king of weight loss. 200 to 400m sprints will spike your heart rate to the 175 to 190 range which will send your metabolism into a frenzy (meaning after the workout your body will continue burn calories, often for a very long period of time). Thats why power lifting is a good tool for weight loss as well, it forces you into effort/hear-rate peak which spike your metabolism.

 

[ocean size]

He's three hundred and change pounds, sprinting is contraindicated.

TS listen to these guys though, increase the calories a little. You are going to get injured on 40g protein a day if you are lifting heavy (which you should). Get some of this in you maybe https://www.mynaturalmarket.com/Sun...-qSiyo8b0FWsvNWr347EkRzl5xHJbmxQaAlopEALw_wcB

You gotta prepare for the long haul, you are developing sustainable habits you can stick with for life. If try and rush but you burn out or get injured, well that's all bad. 5 lb a week is 250 lb a year. Your skin wouldn't have a chance to respond even if everything else worked.


Don't compare yourself to your friend. You can't eat as little as he and powerlift and expect it to work. That mafucker probably started doing meth.

Good luck buddy stick with it!

 

[560ti]

He's three hundred and change pounds, sprinting is contraindicated.

If he can do 45 minutes on the elliptical (along with high weight powerlifting) then I hardly doubt he's unfit to run in a straight line for 30 to 60 seconds. Lets be real, I"m not asking him to do a lap around the track in under a minute.........

His sprint speed is not going to be that fast. If for some reason he can't run in a straight line that long (doubtful, i see people his weight do it all the time) then he can simple do the sprints on the elliptical or in a pool (concept will be the same, get the hearrate to spike in the 175 to 190 range then back off for a minute or so).

 

[Kframe]

Sorry everyone that it took me so long to respond to this. @Badger67 and everyone else's advice, plus it just feels better, I have increased my calories. Now, it depends on the day, and what I am doing but I average between 1800 and 2100 now. It just varies. Lost another 5lbs for a 10lbs total so far.

I am currently upping my protein. I am close to 70 today, and am trying to get it up close to 100. It is a careful balancing act though, as getting that amount in on this WFPB diet and not going over into "not loose weight" category is tricky as most sources are only 7-8 g protein per serving but 100 calories or more. I think supplementation, as recommended by @ocean size is what is called for.

Work out wise, I have had to drop a set from 4x8 to 3x8. I agree with the sprints, but I want to get myself into a better base cardio first. I have moderate BP issues, which doctor said would likely go away with weight loss, and I fear spiking my bpm up to 175+ may actually be dangerous. The highest I have been so far is 163. Which was yesterday.

Now it was said I should be lifting heavy. I think I am. My 1rpm for squat for instance is 305lbs, and I am doing 250lbs 3x8. Probably going to up it to 255 next session.

My friend who lost 200lbs, most assuredly didn't do meth. That man is a cardio freak. He rides 30+ miles in the morning before work, and another 20miles after work. Plus what ever work outs he does at work. Apparently his office has an actual gym in it, so he does some rowing there. I remember when he was 430lbs. It's funny actually. Said that his knees feel better and his dick got a lot bigger...

I am going to kill this. Fuck being fat.

 

[j123]

and his dick got a lot bigger...

Pics bro, or it didn't happen

 

[Kframe]

Ok. Had a frustrating thing happen this morning. Monday I weighed in at 334. Which is a loss from my total from last week. However, today I weighed in, and I am back up to 337?! What the hell is going on? I have been tracking my calories all week, should be no way in hell I gained 3lbs..

 

[BillytheFish]

Either weigh yourself daily and on the 7th day take an average- that is your weight loss.

OR

Weigh yourself once a week. If you haven't lost any weight for 2 weeks you're eating too much/not exercising consistently/both.

At >300lbs you should be able to make a much faster and noticeable weight loss than people +40lbs overweight.

For your cardio I'd recommend finding a football field. Jog the widths, walk the lengths fast. If thats easy job the lengths, walk the widths. If thats easy- run a length and width and walk the rest fast. If that's easy run the entire perimeter then walk half the perimeter...you see where Im going with this. With your weight methods this will help reduce injuries.

 

[FutureSergant]

Go low carb and be sure to eat 150-200g of protein every day,you will lose fat and gain muscle at the same time at quite quick pace.

 

[Codger]

If you're already an experienced lifter then your lifts suffer when you cut. That's just the way it is.

You have to pick your goal. If losing the fat is important then don't worry about the lifts. Keep lifting to keep your muscle, but don't expect to be making much progress. And be careful about doing "intesifiers" shit like drop sets etc because they're just likely to exhaust you and have little growth effect. Once you're nice and skinny, THEN focus on your lifts.

Personally I don't have a problem with the calories. You'll lose the fat quicker if you eat less cals and that appears to be your main goal which it should be at 300+ lbs.

 

[orca]

I only ate like 400 calories a day before and i lost a kilo a day lol. I know its not healthy but i just wanna get skinny Fast.i also work out 2 hours a day.i feel extremly weak in the gym but i dont really care even if i dont gain muscles just to get skinny .before i was 176 lbs now im only 127 lbs

 

[RawHawg]

No, you just go by the amount you ate. To subtract calories from how many you think you burned and use that as your daily total, would be like convincing someone if they are born premature, that they don't start counting their age until the date where they would have hit the 9 month gestation period.

 

[Codger]

. 5 lb a week is 250 lb a year. Your skin wouldn't have a chance to respond even if everything else worked.

You know I wonder if this is actually true. I hear it said a lot but I can't find any real proof of it. I've known older women lose weight slowly and end up with baggy skin and I've seen some younger fat dudes totally transform in under a year and not have it at all. Age would seem to be the predictor here, not rate of loss. Seems to me that the skin is either elastic enough to spring back, or it's not, and the amount of time you take to shrink is unlikely to make any difference. Could be wrong though.

I was always a proponent of the slow and steady approach but I'm more open to rapid/crash diets now. Sure they're not great in terms of muscle loss but that can be mitigated with doing weights to a useful degree. And they have some advantages too. One is psychological - plenty of people find more extreme diets more rewarding and easier to stick to than shaving a few hundred cals a day for months on end. In fact some people simply cannot lose weight like that - one donut in the evening, a bigger helping of pasta etc and you've blown the day and this just keeps happening with the diet going on forever in an endless cycle.

Also I think they can actually help change eating habits. By severely cutting cals you have to face real hunger for prolonged periods and you learn to deal with it by putting enjoyment of food as a lower priority than you used to. Instead of eeking out tasty food to hit your cal targets and thinking about it all the time, you just get some not-very-enjoyable eating done and move on with the day.

I've found eating like 800cals of low carb, mostly shakes, to be actually easier than 2000 cals of balanced diet. Sure the first 3 days are hell, but after that, food ceases to become anywhere near as important, your stomach shrinks (or feels like it anyway) and I believe that with a careful reintroduction phase this can be carried forward into your life afterwards.

This study compared rapid vs slow weightloss: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract

They concluded: "The rate of weight loss does not affect the proportion of weight regained within 144 weeks. These findings are not consistent with present dietary guidelines which recommend gradual over rapid weight loss, based on the belief that rapid weight loss is more quickly regained."

I know - it's just one study but still, seems like what we take as common sense might not be quite as sensible as believed.

 

[Bekim]

You know I wonder if this is actually true. I hear it said a lot but I can't find any real proof of it. I've known older women lose weight slowly and end up with baggy skin and I've seen some younger fat dudes totally transform in under a year and not have it at all. Age would seem to be the predictor here, not rate of loss. Seems to me that the skin is either elastic enough to spring back, or it's not, and the amount of time you take to shrink is unlikely to make any difference. Could be wrong though.

I was always a proponent of the slow and steady approach but I'm more open to rapid/crash diets now. Sure they're not great in terms of muscle loss but that can be mitigated with doing weights to a useful degree. And they have some advantages too. One is psychological - plenty of people find more extreme diets more rewarding and easier to stick to than shaving a few hundred cals a day for months on end. In fact some people simply cannot lose weight like that - one donut in the evening, a bigger helping of pasta etc and you've blown the day and this just keeps happening with the diet going on forever in an endless cycle.

Also I think they can actually help change eating habits. By severely cutting cals you have to face real hunger for prolonged periods and you learn to deal with it by putting enjoyment of food as a lower priority than you used to. Instead of eeking out tasty food to hit your cal targets and thinking about it all the time, you just get some not-very-enjoyable eating done and move on with the day.

I've found eating like 800cals of low carb, mostly shakes, to be actually easier than 2000 cals of balanced diet. Sure the first 3 days are hell, but after that, food ceases to become anywhere near as important, your stomach shrinks (or feels like it anyway) and I believe that with a careful reintroduction phase this can be carried forward into your life afterwards.

This study compared rapid vs slow weightloss: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70200-1/abstract

They concluded: "The rate of weight loss does not affect the proportion of weight regained within 144 weeks. These findings are not consistent with present dietary guidelines which recommend gradual over rapid weight loss, based on the belief that rapid weight loss is more quickly regained."

I know - it's just one study but still, seems like what we take as common sense might not be quite as sensible as believed.

Genetics play a huge part as well, just like how some women have huge amounts of stretch marks after there first and only child, whilst others can literally pop them out with hardly any at all.

But back to your point, age becomes a factor at some point. I used to know a short skinny guy, he showed me his jeans from when he was fat in his younger years, he could fit his body into one of the legs after all the weight he lost. The skin on his tricep whilst it looked normal, could be stretched nearly 20cm but would quite quickly return back to shape.

 

[Codger]

Genetics play a huge part as well, just like how some women have huge amounts of stretch marks after there first and only child, whilst others can literally pop them out with hardly any at all.

But back to your point, age becomes a factor at some point. I used to know a short skinny guy, he showed me his jeans from when he was fat in his younger years, he could fit his body into one of the legs after all the weight he lost. The skin on his tricep whilst it looked normal, could be stretched nearly 20cm but would quite quickly return back to shape.

Yeah I would also imagine it's partly down to how long you were fat for. Skin that has been stretched, and had cell turnover for like 10 years ain't gonna snap back if you lose 100lbs.

My guess is that the rate of weight loss is likely to be the least important factor out of the things we've mentioned

 

[Kframe]

Just an update. I have been following the advice here, and have upped my calories quite a bit, 2000 a day most days. Hitting 100g protein every day. Just started week 4 as a vegan, and during the last 3 weeks have lost 14.4 lbs.

Working out every day, lifting then cardio. I appreciate all the help this thread and the people in it have provided me.