Interesting Article on calorie restriction vs exercise vs Calorie restriction and exercise

SezxyStef

robininfl wrote: »

Machka9 wrote: »

foxygirl14 wrote: »

Francl27 wrote: »

foxygirl14 wrote: »

Very interesting! I usually eat 50% of my exercise calories back but I guess I need to stop. Maybe I should quit logging it too so it won't throw off my "If every day were like today you would be __ in 5 weeks."

Why?

Because of the last paragraph summarizing the article:

"If you embark on a weight-loss journey that involves both adding exercise and cutting calories, Montclair's Diana Thomas warned not to count those calories burned in physical activity toward extra eating.

'Pretend you didn't exercise at all,' she said. 'You will most likely compensate anyway so think of exercising just for health improvement but not for weight loss.'"

Sorry but ... if I'm on a 5 or 6 hour bicycle ride, I need to eat at least some of my calories back or there's this rather horrible thing called "bonking" ... and not in the UK sense of the word.

If I've just gone for a 30 min walk, however, I might not eat those calories back.

This is true - I work in an office full of distance athletes, and nutrition is a big deal, they eat little packets of honey and stuff during a long run, because once your muscles run out of fuel you will just fall over. But doing a 6 hour workout is very unusual, in terms of the general population, even fit people. Most of us can afford to work out and not eat it back while losing weight, and I never eat before exercising in the morning, can do up to an hour and feel vigorous and healthy if I eat a good supper the night before, so there is plenty floating around in there to fund a workout even 10 hours after I eat.


Bonking in the UK sense of the word, now that I could do for 6 hours. If I had time.

I don't think the bolded part is true.

I think that this is the reason lots of people are damaging their health while losing weight.

They are netting under the minimum recommended daily intake of all nutrients and at the end of the weight loss are unhappy with what they see.

I mean if you drive your car and never put anything but just enough gas to get where your going what happens when you take a wrong turn and go somewhere you can't get gas??? you run out and that's what our bodies do...run out.

robininfl

But if you want to lose some mass, you have to eat less than you are burning, right? Underfund the workouts, or it won't shift. Yes it feels crappy, agreed. But I still think it's less damaging than being idle and eating even less.

AnnPT77

robininfl wrote: »

But if you want to lose some mass, you have to eat less than you are burning, right? Underfund the workouts, or it won't shift. Yes it feels crappy, agreed. But I still think it's less damaging than being idle and eating even less.

If you're using MFP as designed - if your set your goal to lose weight, let MFP calculate your calorie goal, then you eat to that calorie goal - you will lose weight. That includes eating back exercise. You don't have to "underfund" the exercise to eat less than you are burning.

MFP's method of weight loss assumes you eat back the exercise calories. Your calorie deficit is still there when you do eat back the exercise calories (unless those exercise calories are substantially over-estimated).

(. . . but then you say "better than being idle and eating even less", suggesting you do know that you should eat back at least some of your exercise calories, so maybe you're understanding this and I'm misreading what you meant to say. But if I am, someone else (new) may be, too . . . . Or perhaps you're using TDEE method, not the MFP NEAT method?)

EmPersson

I saw this article yesterday, too, and found it very interesting. I'm glad to see all of the discussion going on about it. I agree that it's all in the calorie counting. And, I agree with @robininfl in that most of us have enough "floating around" to not eat back our work out calories. I mean, I work an office job, sit at a desk, and commute in a car. I only have time for 30-45 minutes on a treadmill in the mornings. My calories/energy spent on the treadmill in the morning, though? I'm going to do my best *not* to eat those calories back while I'm trying to lose weight. I ate them back for a month, and never saw the scale budge. I decided to try not eating them, and I'm starting to lose almost 2lbs per week (a fairly healthy rate of weight loss). Am I going to stop working out often? No - for the same reasons stated in the article. It's good for my heart, blood levels, mental state, etc. It's not for losing *that much more* weight.

catsdogsh

This is why I never eat back my exercise calories. I won't lose anything if I tried eating back the exercise calories. Some people with a good metabolism might be able to do that.

janejellyroll

catsdogsh wrote: »

This is why I never eat back my exercise calories. I won't lose anything if I tried eating back the exercise calories. Some people with a good metabolism might be able to do that.

Our metabolisms, overall, are pretty much the same. Even people with a slower metabolism don't burn *that* less. If someone isn't losing weight because they're eating their exercise calories, it means that something is probably off with their estimate of calories in/calories out. It isn't that they can't eat back exercise calories while other people can -- it means something is off with how they have calculated their deficit.

robininfl

Yes I know you gotta eat enough that your body doesn't eat your muscles, bones, and brain!

I'm not personally trying to lose much weight (started underweight, overshot somewhat by my standards but still well inside healthy, low end of healthy BMI) so do try to eat close to maintenance using TDEE, that's my two thousand calories estimate. But I don't eat more for 2 workout days than for zero workout days, and try to move around a little more than I put into the equation since I am trying to reduce by a scant few pounds, that's what I mean by underfunding the exercise. I try to adjust exercise up from my baseline usual, but not eat more, a couple days a week, that's the 'diet'.

lemurcat12

robininfl wrote: »

Yes I know you gotta eat enough that your body doesn't eat your muscles, bones, and brain!

That's the concern with people not eating exercise back -- some don't have that common sense. I think that if you just increase your walking some or incorporate yoga or pilates or some weights or the like and have a moderate deficit, sure, don't worry about it. This is especially true if you aren't counting super precisely (as the article seems to be discussing).

Personally, the other time I lost weight I simply looked at how much I was eating, figured out how to cut out a reasonable number of calories (500 or so, I was pretty overweight) and then decided to try to ramp up my exercise to about an hour a day, give or take, with usually an off day, and to walk as much as I could in my daily life. I lost about 2 lbs/week for a while without counting, and I didn't eat based on exercise at all. But that's because my overall deficit took activity into account because of the method I was doing (even if I didn't realize it was a method).

Similarly, now I figured out my TDEE and eat about 250 less when trying to lose -- don't eat back exercise, because TDEE takes exercise into account.

The problem is when someone is using the MFP method (take your NEAT -- or TDEE minus exercise -- and then cut off your deficit from that) and then doesn't account for exercise. This is aggravated when someone takes an aggressive cut of 1000, especially if the person doesn't have a lot to lose or isn't that big, and when someone is doing a lot of exercise.

It really depends (just as the role of exercise in weight loss really depends).