Lost 5kg by not eating back exercise calories!

Options
124»

Replies

  • tyediri
    tyediri Posts: 183 Member
    Options
    Okay, using myself as an example...

    This is my third go on MFP. The first 2 times I stuck to a 1200kcal goal to lose weight quickly. I would be really good at the start, lose lots of weight, get really excited at how fast the scale moved which kept me motivated, and got to my goal weight. When the scales stopped moving and I knew I had reached my goal, I started eating "normally" again and put it all back on (and as a 5"4' girl I only have to eat 2000-2400kcals a day to gain all the weight back).

    This third time round I have set my goal to 1500kcals, only log about 50-75% of my exercise (and eat back those calories), work-in some ice cream, pizzas, chocolates, dinner out, etc and am losing about 0.5kg every 10 days (and have been doing so for about 4 months). It is much slower, but it doesn't feel like a diet at all, I can keep this going for the rest of my life easily, and I won't have to make massive changes to my diet when I reach maintenance again (just increase my calories by a couple hundred calories and I am at maintenance).

    It isn't always about how quickly you lose weight, it is about finding something you can do for the rest of your life, when you are not as motivated and the scales stop moving.
    So if you can eat more and still lose weight, why not do that? Sounds like eating back your exercise calories will maybe bring you down to a 2pound a week loss. Isn't that plenty??

    Losing the weight it only 10% of the battle. Keeping it off is the hard part.

    Good luck!!!! :smiley:
  • tyediri
    tyediri Posts: 183 Member
    Options
    Oh and I also, regularly go over my calories. I track a rolling average of net calories on excel, and I actually net about 1600kcals on average and still lose 0.5kg every 10 days. Whoop! :wink:
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    Sounds like you got it this time :)
  • LivingtheLeanDream
    LivingtheLeanDream Posts: 13,342 Member
    Options
    BurnWithBarn2015 wrote: »
    Lost

    95069916.png


    And i eat back what i can, when i can, when ever i can!


    ^^ loving the attitude and totally agree :smiley:
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    A male eating 1000 calories (gross) then losing at an unsustainable rate is a recipe for disaster.
  • blessingsfromabove721
    blessingsfromabove721 Posts: 161 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    brianpperkins wrote: »
    A male eating 1000 calories (gross) then losing at an unsustainable rate is a recipe for disaster.

    This
  • tyediri
    tyediri Posts: 183 Member
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    Sounds like you got it this time :)

    Thank you!! Yes, I think so!
  • Dnarules
    Dnarules Posts: 2,081 Member
    Options
    MarcyKirkton wrote: »
    A bottle of red wine is 625 calories on the average

    Berlinger white Zinfandel is 500 per bottle.

  • jeannes1026
    jeannes1026 Posts: 2 Member
    Options
    I just don't log the exercise and then MFP doesn't adjust my calories
  • blankiefinder
    blankiefinder Posts: 3,599 Member
    Options
    MarcyKirkton wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    MarcyKirkton wrote: »
    are losing at a rate recommended by your doctor or reputable sources


    Lots of people seem to think it's weak to not be able to do this, either, so telling them it's not important to fuel the exercise so long as they feel like they don't need to (regardless of how much they are losing) seems irresponsible to me. Better to encourage people to be sensible and acknowledge what's healthier.

    I just look at the rate of loss. I've never lost more than 2 lbs in a week. It comes down by ounces, literally. So as long as the rate of loss is steady and within normal recommended guidelines, then the person probably is eating plenty. No?
    Nope, not if your maintenance calories are low. Take myself for example. My maintenance calories are 1680, and I know this to be quite accurate based on months of logging when I entered maintenance. For me to lose 2 pounds per week (which I still have some to spare), I would have to net 680 calories per day. So you can't just look at the rate of loss, you need to look at minimum net calories.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    If someone is only burning say, 100-200 calories everyday or a few times a week, then I think eating back exercise calories isn't that imperative. But if you're burning up in the 500 to 1000 range, then it become much more important to fuel that much exercise.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited October 2015
    Options
    MarcyKirkton wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    MarcyKirkton wrote: »
    are losing at a rate recommended by your doctor or reputable sources


    Lots of people seem to think it's weak to not be able to do this, either, so telling them it's not important to fuel the exercise so long as they feel like they don't need to (regardless of how much they are losing) seems irresponsible to me. Better to encourage people to be sensible and acknowledge what's healthier.

    I just look at the rate of loss. I've never lost more than 2 lbs in a week. It comes down by ounces, literally. So as long as the rate of loss is steady and within normal recommended guidelines, then the person probably is eating plenty. No?

    I generally think so, although for me losing 2 lb/week would likely be too much and suggest I was at risk of losing unnecessary LBM, so I don't think 2 lb is always a good rate of loss, independent of size.

    But yeah, if someone isn't losing that much I tend to assume they aren't doing massive amounts of exercise or are eating more than they think. Again, my issue is with someone losing a normal amount suggesting to others that that means it's totally great to create a greater than healthy deficit, as seems to happen in other threads of this type.

Categories