Originally Posted by JohnP:
Source? Efficiency might account for 10% at best and even that is far fetched.

I know its getting off the subject, and i can only speak anectdoctally, but i do believe your calorie burn can become substantially less~ metabolic adaptation. Based on HR monitor/weight gain experience/body bugg, i realized i only burned closer to 1000 cals running an entire marathon, rather than the *accepted* 100 cals/mile average.....fallowing that, i should have been burning 2600.
But all monitoring deices are flawed, and i was a severe case of metabolic adaptation and overtraining....

Still, back to the OP~ you ARE losing fat though, so you MUST be in a deficit, even though it IS A FACT that there is no way to know how much youre actually eating.

Right now, its working (slower than youd like, but working, none-the less). It wont forever though. Me personally? id bring my food scale to the cafeteria. I dont care HOW dorky it is. Id stick to the whole foods and weigh it out, right there in front of everyone... still better than what youre donig now, IMHO

Originally Posted by mkroyer:
I know its getting off the subject, and i can only speak anectdoctally, but i do believe your calorie burn can become substantially less~ metabolic adaptation. Based on HR monitor/weight gain experience/body bugg, i realized i only burned closer to 1000 cals running an entire marathon, rather than the *accepted* 100 cals/mile average.....fallowing that, i should have been burning 2600.
But all monitoring deices are flawed, and i was a severe case of metabolic adaptation and overtraining....

Your heart can become much more efficient. That wasn't the problem I had with the statement. That said you have brought to light the problem with calculating calories spent in a highly adapted endurance athlete utilizing a HR monitor and don't get me started on the bodybugg. Yea - I called you that :D