I give ranges because I have less information than you do. What is important is consistency in getting physical activity, rather than painstakingly fret over the numbers.
Fair enough. The more I think about this, the more I’m confounded by what my base rate might be. If it were the high range of 3500ish, I could lose weight somewhat effortlessly, but even the low range seems high or I’d have lost weight in the last four weeks. Maybe it’s the “I’m a 51 yo” factor: BMR is lower with age, so everything else falls out from that. I guess?
Can’t I do both? 
Considering most people underestimate their calorie intake by 30%, he’s probably going to be fine with his numbers.
Well, FWIW I’m considering buying a gram scale so I can weigh portions. Pain in the ass, but I’m getting very sick of eating only packaged food because it has calorie labeling. Obviously a little knowledge is a dangerous thing (witness this thread), but at least I could toss a salad and report the calories accurately.
The formulaic approach is a very reasonable place to start and your math seems reasonable to me. The difficulty however with the calculators, even the best ones, is how much not only YMMV but WILL vary. Biological systems are more complicated machines than most and dynamically adjust themselves to changes. That said, your math seems fine.
Rhythmdvl, accumulating an hour in four 15 minute sessions is considered as fine for weight loss as a one hour session. Guidelines do advise at least 10 minutes a session. It may even be better because a) you are more likely to maintain a higher intensity during four 15 minute sessions with recovery between than during a single one hour session and b) because you are spending more time benefiting from an after exercise increase in calorie burn (excess post-exercise oxygen consumption - EPOC) … not a huge number of calories but it is something.
Calorie dense stuff is really important to weigh/measure, lettuce not so much. I was careful about portions of ice cream, oil, butter, meats, starchy vegetables, pasta/rice/cous cous serves or peanut butter etc. and I would measure any dressing I was using but a guesstimate for salad or green beans should be fine.
The weighing stuff really is crucial if calorie counting. You get into the habit really fast, it seems onerous now but won’t for long
DSeid, thanks for answering Rhythmdvl’s question, I was also wondering the same thing. I’d assumed that there was a small penalty in doing sets from getting your heart rate back up to speed per set, but the notion that there’s a per set “afterglow” where you’re still burning calories is not one I expected. Interesting!
Thanks, and I’m sure your right. My comment about salads should have said something like “I can toss a salad and toss [something] in and still report the calories,” where that thing might be chicken or cheese or whatever calorie dense thing. That’s what I was getting at, and I expressed it poorly and my apologies, and your comment is very well taken.
Agree with posters who say to eat more calories than your BMR- I believe for a sedentary person, they would suggest your BMR multiplied by 1.25. That being said, I would NOT eat back the calories you burn by exercising. Those are your deficit calories. If you re-eat them, why did you work out? Other than its good for your heart. Similarly, I would not do quite so much cardio at a steady state- opt for maybe 30 mins a day of interval training (say, 1 minute of a hard effort- for you, maybe trying to get to 150 BPM for you, then recover for 2 mins. Repeat.) there’s evidence that this approach is more effective for belly fat. If you have the means, get some hand weights and look for strength routines online. Bodybuilding.com might be a good place to start. Lastly, up your protein intake! You don’t need to go super low carb, but I have found that shooting for 25-30 percent of my calories from protein keeps me full & muscular. Good luck! Be healthy! Even if you on lose a pound, eating well & exercising is a smart and nice thing to do for yourself.
100% bad idea to not eat exercise calories back if you are calculating purely based on BMR and activity level, as the OP is doing (as opposed to something like TDEE [Total Daily Energy Expenditure]). You need a certain number of net calories to function (and to lose weight). If the OP is set at 1400 net calories, and burns 600 and doesn’t eat them back, he’s netting 800 calories for the day, an unhealthily low number.
To give you another example, I burned about 1600 calories today on a long run and a bike ride. Are you saying I shouldn’t eat those back? Yeah right.
No, OP (and everyone else), eat your exercise calories back if you’re using a simple in vs. out caloric calculation and BMR.
Um, I suppose that would depend on whether your objective was to maintain your current weight or to lose weight. Pretty sure the OP is looking to do the latter.
My only (minor) comment is that the calories burned during biking appears to include your BMR, so you’re effectively double-dipping your BMR for the duration that you’re exercising.
That is a very good point. To be precise you need to figure out the net extra. Roughly that is that 1800 divided by 24 so 75 calories an hour. So take off, oh call it 100, from your calories burned.
Are you using actual cycling shoes? They have a very stiff sole and might help. I’ve been able to ride my bike when having a mild gout attack of the toes and even when I stubbed a toe bad enough to turn it purple a couple of months ago.
Road bike shoes are very slick an made to be used with cleats attached and protruding out the bottom of the sole. Mountain bike shoes have more of a conventional tread on the bottom, but can also have recessed cleats if you need them on an outdoor bike. MTB shoes are also stiff. If flexing your feet hurts, a stiff bike shoe may help.
The question isn’t should you eat the calories back; you will. The question is whether you plan a balanced diet that allows you to bike 20+ miles, or pig out on junk food to cover the lost calories. You will eat most those calories back; it is a question of how…
A website I use every few months is “http://www.fitday.com/”. It lets you set an estimated daily “base rate” for calorie expenditure, and then add activities based on duration and intensity. If you are honest about your base rate of a daily activities, it seems pretty accurate. I keep track for a few days every so often to “recalibrate” my diet to my current level of activity.
This summer, I was extremely active (60+ minutes of physical activity daily, plus chores, etc). I found that with a 500 calorie deficit (as tracked on FitDay), I was too exhausted to complete this range of activities. However, I determined this was because I was already at my ideal body weight (which was higher than expected because I am athletic).
At 5-7 and 200 pounds, you probably have some room to loose weight; however if you stay as active as you plan, you will build up some muscle, so your ideal weight may rise. Stick with modest goals and reevaluate every so often how your ultimate goal weight; at a 500 calories a day deficit and vigorous activity, you would weigh 180 by the end of the New Year!
:smack: An excellent point. So my 11.1 kcal/min for biking at 120bpm falls to 9.85/min, or 738.75 kcal for 75 minutes of biking. Thanks large for pointing that out.
I am in the process of losing weight right now and have been for almost a year. I ALWAYS eat my exercise calories back. I’ve lost 30 lbs.
Go ahead and try to not eat exercise calories back and see what happens. You’ll especially see bad things happen if you exercise a lot (i.e. 500+ calories per day type thing).
Another point I should make about eating back exercise calories is that you need a surplus of that extra caloric energy to build muscle. If you don’t have it (along with enough protein in your diet), you won’t be able to build any muscle. You want muscle.
(ETA: When I was in the midst of my ED, I ate 800 calories a day while exercising that much off. I was very unhealthy. I was taking in zero net calories - well below my BMR. Not eating back exercise calories will do the same thing to the OP - not enough coming back in to the body to sustain basic life functions.).
But you lived to write this post, which argues you did at the very least sustain basic life functions for the duration. 