Quote:
Originally Posted by Tucson
I think if you were in the same shape as the average person, then maybe the 2200 calorie value would be more applicable. However, you probably are in much better shape than that. The calorie value from your watch does not take into consideration other factors like heart rate and fitness level. So I would only eat short of that figure, maybe by a percentage. FWIW that figure would be more applicable to me than to you. This assumes your watch in this respect is nearly enough to be useful. If this approach does not prove to work, I think you may need to ignore it. This is what you have already been doing.
|
The problem with totally ignoring it is that I have to set my calorie goal to an average day, which is fine if I am consistent about exercise. But I am starting to incorporate some core and upper body exercises and will cut back on walking a little. Also, as it gets warmer and the days get longer I will start doing other activities on a lot of days that are harder to track. Two hours of paddling yesterday was fairly constant exercise. But I am new to SUP paddling (fell in twice) and was getting my "sea legs". Once I am used to balancing and paddling, I will take a fishing rod with me and I might be out on the water two hours with really only 30 minutes of exercise. But I think setting my goal on the low end and ballparking exercise burn will be easier than setting a goal to average total burn.
__________________
|
|Up and down
|And in the end it's only round and round
|Pink Floyd - Us and Them
|
|bipolar II, substance use disorder, ADD
|lamictal, straterra
|
|