Seven Costanza said:
emando2000 said:
Seven Costanza said:
I add the cardio calories in. I try to eat 1800 calories a day during the work week. If I run 3 miles that day, I add 380 calories to that, meaning I need to eat 2180 for the day.
There are calculators that estimate your calories burned per mile based on weight and speed. I know they aren't perfect, but it seems to be close enough.
OP's goal is to lose weight, not maintain. I wouldn't advise anyone trying to lose weight to add back in the calories burned. First of all it's hard to know how accurate the devices are. In the end, caloric deficit is what's gonna get OP to a goal weight/appearance quicker. It takes 3500 calories to burn a pound of fat so adding calories back in for calories burned is slowing down the process.
I use a Polar device. How accurate is it? No idea but I use it just to get an idea. My friend has a Fitbit & his calories burned are a lot higher than mine but there is no way his workouts are more intense than mine. So with that being said, one of our devices are off so you need to have a conservative approach when reading those calories burned.
It doesn't matter if you're trying to gain, lose, or maintain. Adding the calories back in allows you to better track your where you're at for the day. My maintenance calories are about 2100/day for going about my regular day. Therefore I like to eat 1800 to have a deficit of 300 per day during the week. If I didn't add the running calories back in, I would be at a 600+ calorie deficit, which is a much greater than I want.
To use a more extreme example, let's say that your maintenance calories are 2100 per day and you want to eat 1600 to "burn a pound of fat per week". If you run 10 miles and eat your usual 1600 calories, you will be running a 2000 calorie deficit for the day, which is pretty unhealthy in my opinion.
It all depends on your goals and what everyone is doing. I get your extreme example but let's be realistic. I highly doubt the majority of people trying to lose weight are running 10 miles a day. If you're trying to lose weight, don't add the calories burned back into your diet. It'll take a long time to get to your goals.
Assuming no medical conditions it's safe enough (but no lower) for an individual to run at 1000-1200 cals/day for women & 1400 cals/day for men
if you're targeting weight loss. I did this about a month ago for 2 weeks & am doing it now for 2 weeks. In between now and then I was dieting at 1800 cal's/day. I would just make sure you're taking a multivitamin and a few supplements like potassium and magnesium
if you're not getting enough in your food. I should be at my target BF% after this go around and will increase to 1800 for a couple of weeks and then increase again. 1000-1400 cals/day is enough food
if you're eating quality food. Your body and hunger adapts. 1400 calories was a bit tough initially, now 1800 calories
of quality food feels like a lot! 2000 calories of quality food is tough nowadays. If you're eating whataburger, 1200 cals is practically anything combo on their menu.
Figure out your maintenance calories and set your goal. If you don't know what it is, simply add a 0 to your current weight to get a rough estimate. From there eat at a caloric deficit and work out. If you want to expedite the fat loss, don't eat to make up for the calories burned. If you want to drag on the process for months, then add the calories back in. Running at a caloric deficit of 300 calories a day will yield 1 lb of fat in almost 2 weeks or about 2.5 lbs in a month. For me, I'd rather not eat back in all the calories burned. You have to keep in mind that not everyone is gonna workout
everyday. 500 caloric deficit yields more like 4.5 lbs in a month.
Either way, you're gonna see results. I do get what everyone is saying about simply eating actual healthy food. You'll get results by taking out sodas, fast food, sweets, etc. But if you're really trying to lose weight, don't add back in the calories burned.