Originally Posted by
Iride01
Makes no sense to me to use Calories burned for dietary purposes if you aren't also weighing and tracking every morsel you put into you.
As well, the numbers you come up with for the foods you eat and drink aren't going to be all that accurate. What you see in the Calorie tables are just averages taken from a sample that might have a lot of variance.
So what ever you use, don't get too caught up with how accurate that number is for Calories burned since you can't get any more accuracy with the Calories consumed. It should suffice if your weight is going in a direction you aren't wanting, then you have to change either your consumption or expenditure.
Originally Posted by
WhyFi
Based on the second sentence of the OP, it sounds to me like he is tracking input. But yes, the proof is on the scale. I found that if I targeted a ~750 calorie daily deficit, I got pretty good results (fast but not too fast). Start with a target daily deficit, see what it gets you, adjust.
I don't track my calories (i.e. food vs. exercise)... but I do watch the calories between workouts. Like for example if my average ride/workout is more or less 1,000 calories for a given week vs. 1,500 for another week. If I don't change my eating habits between the two weeks, I tend to lose weight. So knowing it does help (as inaccurate as it may be, it just needs to be somewhat consistent)... the question about the Apple Watch vs. PM is just curiosity.
Counting calories reminds me of being in school and calculating the distance it takes to stop an airplane during landing. An old instructor summed up the process as "Measure it with a micrometer, mark it with a pencil, and chop it with an axe."