Hi all, started the 800 yesterday and going alright at the moment. I’ve been painting outside my house today for 9 hours and have just discovered that the work burns 320 calories an hour for my height, age and weight. Does this enter calculations. I’ve eaten 600 calories so far. Must say feeling hungry.
higgy22

If you can, just regard it as a bonus, it will speed up your adaptation to burning fat, and if you can’t face that don’t try to eat back it all, but just a hundred calories or so.

Thanks Mixnmatch, in a way glad to hear that, especially the burning fat. Makes things less complicated which I like

According to US recommendations you should increase protein consumption when doing significant amounts of exercise. I had a similar splurge of activity a while back, but forgot to eat more, and spent the next two days regretting it as I was listless and cranky. Oddly though, I wasn’t particularly hungry!

I would definitely agree that if anything you should increase the percentage of protein. I went for 37g fat, 40g carbs and 77g Protein as my exercise levels were quite high for the 800 calories fasts.

That sounds like very energetic painting! I use a treadmill – manual, the equivalent of walking briskly up a 1 in 10 gradient – for 20 minutes five days a week and that only burns around 300 calories an hour. Are you sure of that figure?
Mike

Like anything regarding the burning of calories, accuracy must be problematic. Must say I was surprised. Just checked another site that proposes 272 calories per hour generally. My figures came from a site that asked for height, age and weight so gave me some confidence. Seems the general consensus is that we need to disregard calories burned whilst working and therefore it becomes immaterial anyway.

Yes, I agree – calories burned are a very difficult thing to be sure about other than on some sort of specific machine with a measuring facility. One of the things that is still prevalent (and which I believed until reading the books by Mosley and Taubes) was that weight reduction and – hopefully – blood sugar reduction was simply a case of eating less and moving more so that more calories were burnt than were consumed. It’s not that simple – Taubes, in particular demonstrates study after study that has identified instances of whole communities on the verge of malnutrition yet with obese individuals. To say that it’s not how much you eat but what you eat is a partial truth, but the ‘eat less, move more’ mantra, if taken at face value, ignores the very important question of just what one does eat.
Mike

higgy22 doing exercise and burning calories is a good thing but will go almost nowhere to weight loss. You mention your exercise burning 320 calories per hour. That depends on whether you did a full hour and you have to also consider that some of those calories are from your basal metabolic rate i.e. an average height woman of 10 stone burns 1600 calories daily just from breathing and being alive. I know we are not even eating that amount and that is why we lose weight on this plan. But back to the exercise, lets say your 320 calories equates to 250 calories and you actually did one hour solid. In order to burn one pound of fat you have to lose 3000 calories – so you would have to do that hour 12 times. Most people do some exercise, reduce food intake and generally lose around 1 to 2 lbs a week on a ‘normal’ diet. Just read your profile and see you are a man.

Your goal of 3 stone plus in 3 months is do-able, especially as men seem to lose more quickly than women (there are biological reasons around fat ratio etc) but please be aware that your weight loss will slow the closer you get to your goal. Dont let that stop you, the only way to get to goal is to keep on keeping on…

Keep to the 800 calories and continue with the exercise but disregard the calories burnt, they are irrelevant on this plan.

Thanks Mixnmatch, I asked the same question just now on another thread, then remembered I had already asked it here. :S