Calories intake question

sullivlo

Hello,

I can't figure this out for myself (it doesn't make sense to me) but can too few calories impede weight loss?

My typical exercise schedule (per week) would be:
- one long distance cycle (~2000)
- two/three medium distance swims (~350)
- two/three short runs (~200)
- two/three medium walks (~200)

In brackets I have put the calories burned as per my watch (factoring in heart rate).

General movement would be average. I take the bus to work but there's a walk either end of the journey. I'm on my feet a lot in the daytime and would easily do 10,000 steps without thinking about it.

Now. When I cycle I eat lots while I'm on the bike. Maybe 300 cal an hour. I need to avoid a deficit there so that I don't bonk. So I don't actually count that as exercise.

My BMR is ~1800.

My general diet is good. Three square meals - well balanced, portion controlled. Porridge for breakfast. Something substantial for lunch. Lighter dinner. Some snacks (fruit, popcorn). The odd piece of chocolate. 2+ litres water. Black coffee. One cheat day/meal.

My calorie intake is in or around 1,800. However despite decent levels of exercise in the past few weeks, and I haven't lost any weight. I'm aiming to drop ~15kg over the next while. I don't have a set time but slow and steady.

Main reason for wanting to lose weight is purely cosmetic. I'm healthy, fit and active. I lost ~45 kg a few years back, gained muscle though so dropped a few dress sizes more than expected. But would like to drop one more.

My question is - should I be eating more to compensate for calorie deficits? For example today I had 1,800 calories but went for a run which burned 250 cal. Should I be eating a little more so that I only have a deficit of 100 cal?

Does any of that even make sense?

Cake Man

Too few calories doesn't impede weight loss, this is generally referred to as "starvation mode" in the industry which just isn't true - i.e. your body will stop burning calories if it hasn't got food in a few hours as it thinks there's an emergency and wants to hold onto calories. You'd have to be literally weeks without food and your body shutting down before your body stops doing certain processes to save energy, not a few hours without some food!


If your BMR is 1800 and you say you're eating about 1800 a day, I would think that's probably a bit too low especially given the bit of exercise you're doing. You should be taking in a quantity of calories somewhere between your BMR and TDEE so this would probably bring you up to around 2000+ per day and still be in a deficit.
Google "Scoobys Workshop Calorie Calculator" and plug in your stats there to give you your BMR and TDEE. Let's say it comes out as BMR=~1800 and TDEE=~2300 then aiming for 2000/day should be fine. (Remember, BMR is the minimum amount of calories your body needs each day just to function and do basic internal processes. TDEE is BMR plus an extra amount of calories to cover walking around, exercise, general activity etc.)


I don't think it's possible you could be taking in 1800 (i.e. your BMR if that's what you say it is) and not be losing weight. The exercise will obviously help but ultimately, it'll be down to your diet. You say you eat healthily which is great but do you weigh your food and track calories? This will tell you for sure what you're taking in but I suspect you must be taking in more calories than what you think.

sullivlo

Cake Man wrote: »

Too few calories doesn't impede weight loss, this is generally referred to as "starvation mode" in the industry which just isn't true - i.e. your body will stop burning calories if it hasn't got food in a few hours as it thinks there's an emergency and wants to hold onto calories. You'd have to be literally weeks without food and your body shutting down before your body stops doing certain processes to save energy, not a few hours without some food!


If your BMR is 1800 and you say you're eating about 1800 a day, I would think that's probably a bit too low especially given the bit of exercise you're doing. You should be taking in a quantity of calories somewhere between your BMR and TDEE so this would probably bring you up to around 2000+ per day and still be in a deficit.
Google "Scoobys Workshop Calorie Calculator" and plug in your stats there to give you your BMR and TDEE. Let's say it comes out as BMR=~1800 and TDEE=~2300 then aiming for 2000/day should be fine. (Remember, BMR is the minimum amount of calories your body needs each day just to function and do basic internal processes. TDEE is BMR plus an extra amount of calories to cover walking around, exercise, general activity etc.)


I don't think it's possible you could be taking in 1800 (i.e. your BMR if that's what you say it is) and not be losing weight. The exercise will obviously help but ultimately, it'll be down to your diet. You say you eat healthily which is great but do you weigh your food and track calories? This will tell you for sure what you're taking in but I suspect you must be taking in more calories than what you think.

For 90% of my food it's measured. Yesterday I had:
-Breakfast: Porridge
-Black coffee
-Lunch:Chicken sandwich
-Snack: An apple
-Dinner - ham, potato and broccoli

The only thing I didn't measure was the broccoli. My intake was ~1700. Aside from cycling days (where calorie expenditure is huge so I eat more) that's fairly standard in terms of food intake. If I have a snack in the daytime that brings me over my limits I factor that in to my exercise/activity for the day.

I'm just a bit stumped. I'm doing the same thing now as the last time I was losing weight, with the exception that I'm probably doing more intense exercise than I was (running over walking, swimming longer distances).

ford2600

When I cycle I eat lots while I'm on the bike. Maybe 300 cal an hour. I need to avoid a deficit there so that I don't bonk


I take from your 2000 cals that your doing one 100km cycle week?

If you keep eating in order to provide energy on bike, your body will use it. Chances are it's a highly refined carb, which will insure as a proportion of energy supply your body will use very little body fat.

By doing the opposite (slowly mind as in step by step) you should be able to do that 100km cycle fasted on overnight glycogen stores and bodyfat.

The "science" behind having to eat 300 cals and hour is usually pushed by high 5 Gatorade etc. It's nonsense

Macy0161

300 an hour for training spins seems a lot to me. I know pace, terrain and everything comes into play, but on group spins averaging 26ish, I haven't hit the wall yet on around a 100 calories per hour (first snack an hour into the spin, then I go on the hour), and I fairly often start out fasted/ before breakfast. Have a few gels in your pocket in case of bonking emergency? Might be worth asking that question on the cycling forum.

sullivlo

Macy0161 wrote: »

300 an hour for training spins seems a lot to me. I know pace, terrain and everything comes into play, but on group spins averaging 26ish, I haven't hit the wall yet on around a 100 calories per hour (first snack an hour into the spin, then I go on the hour), and I fairly often start out fasted/ before breakfast. Have a few gels in your pocket in case of bonking emergency? Might be worth asking that question on the cycling forum.

Based on calories in versus calories out I still have a deficit on the day of cycles. 4 hours x 300 cal = 1200. Breakfast tends to be porridge before the cycle and then just dinner afterwards. I'm training for a 200 and there's no chance I could do that fasted. Will look into fasted exercise after the 200 - last year I could do 80km no bother on an empty tummy.

I'm just not sure if day-to-day I'm eating enough. I want to lose weight, yes, but more importantly I want to be healthy! Today already I have swam and run, burning ~400 calories. Should I therefore aim to eat 2,100 to give a 100 deficit or should I just eat my planned meals and have a 400 deficit.

I think that's what I'm trying to ask

Macy0161

Yeah, I've probably confused the issue. tbh it's more I'm always running late and have no choice but to go without breakfast!

imo, based on experience, is that a 100 deficit on BMR isn't enough to lose weight. Or it will be very slowly. It'd be easy enough to underestimate food, over estimate exercise to reduce that 100 a bit. HRM is more accurate than GPS alone, but not 100%, as other factors can effect heart rate that aren't exercise related, and also you need to have fairly accurate zones and/or max and min heart rate values.

The common advice is 500 calorie deficit a day averaged out gives 1lb/0.5kg a week weight loss. I'm in maintenance, but if I've put on a little and want to drop what I do is only eat into "earned" calories so that they still show a 500 calorie deficit. So on a today like today (where I've done a pool run that my garmin with HRM is showing burned 400), I'll try to not eat into that at all.

I'll just repeat, this is just based on experience/ what works for me, not necessarily a recommended approach and I'm happy to be over ruled by an expert!

sullivlo

Ah. See I thought that it was 500 cal deficit = 1lb - it didn't register that it might be 500 cal a day

In which case it's okay to not eat into my burned calories today.

I use my Apple Watch which has a hrm in it. It's not the most accurate but it's accurate enough when compared to my old HRM which had a chest strap. I'll probably look into getting a Bluetooth HRM in time, I'm only getting used to heart rate zone training.

ford2600

1200 cals of primarily junk on bike along with a cheat meal/day will make progress difficult. Because the wrapper says energy food or whatever doesn't make it a good food choice. If it's low in fibre/protein and high in sugar/salt it's a lot of the way to being a junk food.

For endurance events at circa 70% VO2 max fat is perfectly adequate.

The idea of bonking on an endurance event should be as ridiculous as seeing an oil truck running out of fuel on side of road. A lean 80kg meal at 10% bf has over 60000 calories of energy as fat.

I'm not saying you have do ride completely fasted but you would benefit greatly by moving more towards trained your body to run on fat.

What works for you at 100km won't necessarily translate to 200km, especially a hilly one. Gastrointestinal distress is primary cause of failure on endurance events; 300 call for 8/9 hrs is a recipe for that.

You might also benefit from some type of strength/resistance training along with adequate protein to assist in predominantly losing fat rather than just losing weight.

sullivlo

ford2600 wrote: »

1200 cals of primarily junk on bike along with a cheat meal/day will make progress difficult. Because the wrapper says energy food or whatever doesn't make it a good food choice. If it's low in fibre/protein and high in sugar/salt it's a lot of the way to being a junk food.

For endurance events at circa 70% VO2 max fat is perfectly adequate.

The idea of bonking on an endurance event should be as ridiculous as seeing an oil truck running out of fuel on side of road. A lean 80kg meal at 10% bf has over 60000 calories of energy as fat.

I'm not saying you have do ride completely fasted but you would benefit greatly by moving more towards trained your body to run on fat.

What works for you at 100km won't necessarily translate to 200km, especially a hilly one. Gastrointestinal distress is primary cause of failure on endurance events; 300 call for 8/9 hrs is a recipe for that.

You might also benefit from some type of strength/resistance training along with adequate protein to assist in predominantly losing fat rather than just losing weight.

My snacks on the bike tend to be flapjacks with extra nuts so they're more fibre/protein than sugar/salt. I tend to avoid gels etc.

But I think I've got my answer. I need to have a deficit of 3500 over the week rather than 500. That makes sense. It also means I'm okay to not eat beyond my normal diet when working out.

Macy0161

sullivlo wrote: »

Ah. See I thought that it was 500 cal deficit = 1lb - it didn't register that it might be 500 cal a day

In which case it's okay to not eat into my burned calories today.

I use my Apple Watch which has a hrm in it. It's not the most accurate but it's accurate enough when compared to my old HRM which had a chest strap. I'll probably look into getting a Bluetooth HRM in time, I'm only getting used to heart rate zone training.

Well any DC rainmaker review I've read suggest straps more accurate than optical, but I'd say it's the deficit rather than that!

Mellor

sullivlo wrote: »

I can't figure this out for myself (it doesn't make sense to me) but can too few calories impede weight loss?

The simple answer is that no it wont. The whole starvation mode stuff is almost always misused.

My typical exercise schedule (per week) would be:
- one long distance cycle (~2000)
- two/three medium distance swims (~350)
- two/three short runs (~200)
- two/three medium walks (~200)

In brackets I have put the calories burned as per my watch (factoring in heart rate).

It's possible you are over estimating here. A walk might burn 200 cals, but that's total, not extra cals. You'd still have burned 100 cals during that time if you stayed at home. So it's only 100 extra burned, so thats all you should add to stay at the same intake.

sullivlo wrote: »

Based on calories in versus calories out I still have a deficit on the day of cycles. 4 hours x 300 cal = 1200.

Same situation. 4 hours about the house might burn 400 cals. This is the energy that makes up your normal daily energy usage. By adding all the energy from your cycle, and just the extra energy you burn you are double counting your daily energy.

Cake Man wrote: »

You should be taking in a quantity of calories somewhere between your BMR and TDEE

There's no logical reason to pick BMR as a point you need to stay above. Unless you are bedridden, your BMR doesn't really exists.

Remember, BMR is the minimum amount of calories your body needs each day just to function and do basic internal processes.

That's not true.
The amount your body needs to function is your maintenance calories. There isn't a sub-requirement of BMR.
If you supply less than BMR your body can make up the rest from fat stores, the same as with any deficit.

The more fat you have stored the larger deficit you can handle. BMR doesn't enter the equation.

Zillah

I'm not sure why you think you'd "bonk" without grazing constantly while cycling. A healthy person should be able to do a full day of activity in a fasted state. Unless you're in a competition where maximum athletic performance is the goal you've no reason to be cramming food into you during the ride. Eat a bit extra that day and you should be fine.

ford2600

Zillah wrote: »

I'm not sure why you think you'd "bonk" without grazing constantly while cycling. A healthy person should be able to do a full day of activity in a fasted state. Unless you're in a competition where maximum athletic performance is the goal you've no reason to be cramming food into you during the ride. Eat a bit extra that day and you should be fine.

Why?

Probably because OP like an enormous amount of leisure cyclists/runners believe thus nonsense.
https://highfive.co.uk/high5-faster-and-further/road-cycling-nutrition-guides/sportive/

I worked out I needed something like 13 of their products to do a 100km cycle. Also you have to use their caffeine products as tea/coffee is unreliable in terms of dose

Mellor

Glycogen stores are about 1500 cals. Depending on the intensity and % of energy coming from glycogen, that might be sufficient. Even if fat is contributing 0% (unlikely). You only need to eat 500 cals before/during the cycle. 1200 sounds very excessive.

ford2600

Mellor wrote: »

Glycogen stores are about 1500 cals. Depending on the intensity and % of energy coming from glycogen, that might be sufficient. Even if fat is contributing 0% (unlikely). You only need to eat 500 cals before/during the cycle. 1200 sounds very excessive.

Eating 300 cals on the hour of flapjacks, fat use could be close enough to zero

Mellor

ford2600 wrote: »

Eating 300 cals on the hour of flapjacks, fat use could be close enough to zero

Wouldn't fat use be decided by intensity (in terms of %mhr). I'm talking about what is necessary, and not what OP burns with a belly fully of flapjacks. The last 2hours worth are probably just replenishing glycogen.

At sub max intensity it should be possible to burn fat along side glycogen. To avoid the bonk you only need to provide fuel for the shortfall.

ford2600

Mellor wrote: »

Wouldn't fat use be decided by intensity (in terms of %mhr). I'm talking about what is necessary, and not what OP burns with a belly fully of flapjacks. The last 2hours worth are probably just replenishing glycogen.

At sub max intensity it should be possible to burn fat along side glycogen. To avoid the bonk you only need to provide fuel for the shortfall.

The intensity will of course dictate the what proportion is made of fat/glycogen.

At higher intensities the higher oxygen demand of breaking down fat makes glycogen the go to fuel.

However if continually munching pretty fast acting carbs (and after having a breakfast) the body will down regulate it's use of fat even at typical fat burning intensities. An athlete repeatedly doing this will never improve fat burning.

The obvious downside is as the exercise length increases the shortfall increases; the morning stores glycogen will run out(which had acted as a buffer) and on a 200km bike ride an energy crisis or the sh1ts is imminent for many.

As I used to do a lot of ultra stuff I was asked by club to assist with a 2 day 600km ride; none of the other 9 had gone over 160km. The state of the 2/3 lads running on high GI carbs was quite a sight at the end of each day. I was the outlier getting to 150km or so fasted an getting to finish on a few apples but the 5 lads having light protein based breakfast with low sugar foods on bike were all in great shape.

Eating all high GI foods on the hour on endurance/ultra steady state stuff is madness yet often the norm

sullivlo

ford2600 wrote: »

Why?

Probably because OP like an enormous amount of leisure cyclists/runners believe thus nonsense.
https://highfive.co.uk/high5-faster-and-further/road-cycling-nutrition-guides/sportive/

I worked out I needed something like 13 of their products to do a 100km cycle. Also you have to use their caffeine products as tea/coffee is unreliable in terms of dose

I don't follow the high 5 plan at all. I go by how my body feels and how I feel on any given day. The 300 cal an hour is probably over estimating. I only ever use gels in an emergency and would frequently do a decent workout fasted as I can't eat early in the day.

If I need caffeine I have a coffee.

I eat when I need to - it suits me for longer spins. Each to their own and all.

But I figured out where I was going wrong - I forgot it was 500cal deficit per day rather than per week. Call it a blonde moment.

As for the actual calories through exercise as a pose to just standard calorie usage, I tend to underestimate calories burned. I usually do it by time/how I feel. And I do try to get a decent amount of cardio in with some strength and toning work.

My body fat is acceptable (26 with visceral at 11) - it could be better of course. But I'm never going to be a size 6 stick insect. I just want to try drop a few kg more and I was simply curious about food intake impacting weight loss.

ford2600

sullivlo wrote: »

I don't follow the high 5 plan at all. I go by how my body feels and how I feel on any given day. The 300 cal an hour is probably over estimating. I only ever use gels in an emergency and would frequently do a decent workout fasted as I can't eat early in the day.

If I need caffeine I have a coffee.

I eat when I need to - it suits me for longer spins. Each to their own and all.

Of course, eat what you want when you want but when you put this
"When I cycle I eat lots while I'm on the bike. Maybe 300 cal an hour. I need to avoid a deficit there so that I don't bonk"
in a nutrition forum expect it to be challenged.

With overnight glycogen and fat stores, needing 300 cals an hour to avoid bonking on an endurance ride doesn't add up. You haven't said distance, 100km? 25km/h or there abouts?

On an endurance ride, eating that much, when weight loss is goal is counter productive. Depending on the flapjacks the difference between them and gels and their GI impact might not be that much.

I hope your strategy works for you on longer rides(irrespective of weight loss), I've seen it go wrong for many once they up distance. It isn't pleasant by the sounds of it.

sullivlo

I also said that I'm likely overestimating my calorie intake when I'm on the bike. 300 an hour is excessive.

I've completed a few 200km and didn't have an issue, however on one of our rest stops I spent so long queuing for the toilet and changing out of wet gear, I didn't get a chance to eat and I really, really struggled for the next while. Maybe scientifically what we're doing and what is recommended to us by the other cyclists in the group, isn't the best. But I find that it works for me. I don't really count my weekend cycles as exercise - more as leisure. But I do burn calories on the cycles. I'll reduce my intake and see how I get on, and focus more on cutting midweek calories instead.

And yes, 100km/25kph.