Have you tried GLP1 medications and found it didn't work for you? We'd like to hear about your experiences, what you tried, why it didn't work and how you're doing now. Click here to tell us your story
Don't add eat exercise calories
Replies
-
heiliskrimsli wrote: »None of the advice here (which has all been to "eat those calories back") ever mentioned that as a possibility, either. It's all "eat 50% of them at least". The way people state it, at least in this thread, is as a daily requirement.
You are the one who added the "daily". I'm pretty sure I've talked, as have others, about meeting weekly nutrition and calorie goals many times, if not in this thread in particular.
Hunger is generally cued by a need for energy, or calories (as we call the unit of measuring tat energy). You can meet all your vitamin, mineral, essential fatty acids, protein, and fiber needs fit thr day in a surprisingly small number of calories with conscious choices. With foods readily available and cheaply and easily obtainable, I can achieve this in 800 calories. This is interestingly also where the very low calorie diets note a sustained lower limit, for the same reason. However, our bodies require energy beyond just the minimum amount of food providing other nutrients. A lot of people don't make strategic nutritional choices that support nutrition, and are given strategies by nutritionists to meet their needs. "Choose whole-grain breads" is a strategy to get fiber up from the average 11 g a day, but it is not the only route to that objective, for example. Another is "eat less high-fat food", which works by freeing up a lot of calories for more nutrient-dense foods, in absence of specific plans to get those nutrients.
At the other send of the spectrum, people think they must be a slave to what are really arbitrary suggestions meant to support an overall balanced diet. The most fervent are modern ascetics, and their belief structure is rigidly moral. They engage loudly to proselytize, and reasoning with them is about as fruitful as reasoning with anyone fanatical about their belief system. Asceticism has been around a long time send can coexist with other cultural and religious ideas, but it's current incarnation in western society is largely athiestic and couches its beliefs with scientism (not to be confused with scientific argument our evidence).
Now how anyone eats is highly personal. If anyone wants to live any ascetic life, go for it. There are many obvious benefits of asceticism to individuals and society, which helps explain its enduring appeal.
But asceticism is not a requirement for good nutrition, and the copious peer-reviewed literature on this topic by and large backs that position. And a lot of people are not content to live their lives under the strict rules of asceticism. And that's where advocates of overall balanced diets (such as @VintageFeline and @janejellyroll and yes, myself) come in.
That means, for most people whose diet specifically includes nutrient-dense foods, there are a considerable number of "free calories"; That is, they will need calories, and calories alone, far beyond what meeting their other nutrient needs require. This gives quite a bit of flexibility in the diet. Room for things we enjoy, be they cookies, cakes, chips, wine, chocolates, or just a really great cheeseburger.
Not eating exercise calories is a hack to deal with underestimating intake and frequent overestimating calorie burns. But for those who are accurately tracking both, getting those calories is important for sustained health and well-being. I would rather suggest better understandingy and fewer hacks as a more sustainable and reliable approach to nutrition.
Footnote:
I was invited to speak at a scientific meeting where a major scientist proponent of long-term vlcd also spoke. His lab did work on the effects of calorie restriction on mice. I left his task with two major observations. 1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. He did not provide us with that evidence (nor, in my professional opinion) have his published papers. 2. The fact that his entire lab was required to also engage in long -term vlcd eating was exploitative. Graduate students have so much riding on compliance with their mentors that they will agree to even the harshest conditions. In this case, a ghoulish obsession with setting how long starvation of a human can be drawn out.25 -
Not eating exercise calories is a hack to deal with underestimating intake and frequent overestimating calorie burns. But for those who are accurately tracking both, getting those calories is important for sustained health and well-being. I would rather suggest better understandingy and fewer hacks as a more sustainable and reliable approach to nutrition.
This is insightful and bears repeating.8 -
cmriverside wrote: »How in the world did you highjack this entire thread to make it all about you?
For the original poster:
I lost 70 pounds in '07/'08. I ate every calorie given me on Myfitnesspal for exercise. I used the numbers given. I didn't try to rig the system. If you're going to use a tool, use the tool. I adjusted according to my logged data. That's all there is to it. :drinker:
If you're going to go rogue, why ask the community to applaud that? The method on this site works. It's different than using other methods. It just confuses people to say otherwise.
That is great that this site calculates numbers that work for you. They DON'T work for many others. They don't for me. I know this, and I do what works for me. That is all the other poster is saying. Stop trying to apply "what works for me must work for everyone". It simply doesn't.1 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »None of the advice here (which has all been to "eat those calories back") ever mentioned that as a possibility, either. It's all "eat 50% of them at least". The way people state it, at least in this thread, is as a daily requirement.
You are the one who added the "daily". I'm pretty sure I've talked, as have others, about meeting weekly nutrition and calorie goals many times, if not in this thread in particular.
Hunger is generally cued by a need for energy, or calories (as we call the unit of measuring tat energy). You can meet all your vitamin, mineral, essential fatty acids, protein, and fiber needs fit thr day in a surprisingly small number of calories with conscious choices. With foods readily available and cheaply and easily obtainable, I can achieve this in 800 calories. This is interestingly also where the very low calorie diets note a sustained lower limit, for the same reason. However, our bodies require energy beyond just the minimum amount of food providing other nutrients. A lot of people don't make strategic nutritional choices that support nutrition, and are given strategies by nutritionists to meet their needs. "Choose whole-grain breads" is a strategy to get fiber up from the average 11 g a day, but it is not the only route to that objective, for example. Another is "eat less high-fat food", which works by freeing up a lot of calories for more nutrient-dense foods, in absence of specific plans to get those nutrients.
At the other send of the spectrum, people think they must be a slave to what are really arbitrary suggestions meant to support an overall balanced diet. The most fervent are modern ascetics, and their belief structure is rigidly moral. They engage loudly to proselytize, and reasoning with them is about as fruitful as reasoning with anyone fanatical about their belief system. Asceticism has been around a long time send can coexist with other cultural and religious ideas, but it's current incarnation in western society is largely athiestic and couches its beliefs with scientism (not to be confused with scientific argument our evidence).
Now how anyone eats is highly personal. If anyone wants to live any ascetic life, go for it. There are many obvious benefits of asceticism to individuals and society, which helps explain its enduring appeal.
But asceticism is not a requirement for good nutrition, and the copious peer-reviewed literature on this topic by and large backs that position. And a lot of people are not content to live their lives under the strict rules of asceticism. And that's where advocates of overall balanced diets (such as @VintageFeline and @janejellyroll and yes, myself) come in.
That means, for most people whose diet specifically includes nutrient-dense foods, there are a considerable number of "free calories"; That is, they will need calories, and calories alone, far beyond what meeting their other nutrient needs require. This gives quite a bit of flexibility in the diet. Room for things we enjoy, be they cookies, cakes, chips, wine, chocolates, or just a really great cheeseburger.
Not eating exercise calories is a hack to deal with underestimating intake and frequent overestimating calorie burns. But for those who are accurately tracking both, getting those calories is important for sustained health and well-being. I would rather suggest better understandingy and fewer hacks as a more sustainable and reliable approach to nutrition.
Footnote:
I was invited to speak at a scientific meeting where a major scientist proponent of long-term vlcd also spoke. His lab did work on the effects of calorie restriction on mice. I left his task with two major observations. 1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. He did not provide us with that evidence (nor, in my professional opinion) have his published papers. 2. The fact that his entire lab was required to also engage in long -term vlcd eating was exploitative. Graduate students have so much riding on compliance with their mentors that they will agree to even the harshest conditions. In this case, a ghoulish obsession with setting how long starvation of a human can be drawn out.
I love the way you expressed this.4 -
Competitive cyclist here. If I did not eat back my exercise calories every day I would literally waste away. Not eating back your exercise calories is a horrible idea.
10 -
Not eating exercise calories is a hack to deal with underestimating intake and frequent overestimating calorie burns. But for those who are accurately tracking both, getting those calories is important for sustained health and well-being. I would rather suggest better understanding and fewer hacks as a more sustainable and reliable approach to nutrition.
This is gold. Great overall post. So good that a simple idea within like this one could get lost.6 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »How in the world did you highjack this entire thread to make it all about you?
For the original poster:
I lost 70 pounds in '07/'08. I ate every calorie given me on Myfitnesspal for exercise. I used the numbers given. I didn't try to rig the system. If you're going to use a tool, use the tool. I adjusted according to my logged data. That's all there is to it. :drinker:
If you're going to go rogue, why ask the community to applaud that? The method on this site works. It's different than using other methods. It just confuses people to say otherwise.
That is great that this site calculates numbers that work for you. They DON'T work for many others. They don't for me. I know this, and I do what works for me. That is all the other poster is saying. Stop trying to apply "what works for me must work for everyone". It simply doesn't.
Sort of like how sometimes the GPS tells you to go the wrong way down a one way street, or turn your car down a flight of stairs, an app or a website cannot entirely replace applying your brain and ultimately deciding whether to follow the directions or do something different.
That's EXACTLY why I don't eat my weekend calories. Everybody knows weekend calories are overstated anyway, they're probably not even real. Because GPS said to go down a flight of stairs.3 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
I never eat back my exercise calories. Doing so just adds one more layer of uncertainty to what's already an inexact practice.
Why make this more difficult than it needs to be?
edit: I guess it might be worthwhile for marathon runners. But for my 45-minutes or so of lifting, it's not necessary. If the scale moves a direction I don't want it to, I just adjust calories accordingly.
I do TDEE method (sort of, I also sort of bank for the weekend), but that IS eating exercise calories in that I take my expected burn (including exercise) into account in setting calories (which is why I'm doing 1500 to lose with the expectation of having higher weekends instead of 1200, which is what I'd need if I were sedentary).
What people are objecting to is the idea or common practice that you set MFP goal the MFP way -- which is as large a loss as possible assuming that you are sedentary (ask for 2 lb/week, get 1200 if a woman), and then not eating back any exercise at all, ever, even if you exercise quite a lot.
That's not a healthy approach.
If the goal is set based on sedentary/no exercise, as MFP's standard one tends to be, if the goal is aggressive (like 2 lbs/week, or even 1 if one is pretty light), and if one logs accurately (which it seems OP was not), then you should include back some additional calories for exercise IF you do a lot or exercise intensely so that there is actually a meaningful difference.
Sometimes it seems like there's this idea that one should be as aggressive as possible and not eating more is superior or tougher or anyone who does is a secret fatty, whatever their weight. It's odd.
But like you I personally don't use the add back exercise approach as I don't like to eat more on days I exercise more. I'm likely to be more hungry the next day.4 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »None of the advice here (which has all been to "eat those calories back") ever mentioned that as a possibility, either. It's all "eat 50% of them at least". The way people state it, at least in this thread, is as a daily requirement.
Not eating exercise calories is a hack to deal with underestimating intake and frequent overestimating calorie burns. But for those who are accurately tracking both, getting those calories is important for sustained health and well-being. I would rather suggest better understanding and fewer hacks as a more sustainable and reliable approach to nutrition.
Very wise...very wise indeed.
Internet forums are a very poor place for these discussions. Everyone carries an inherent confirmation bias and when someone ask as question such as this many default to the newer posters proclaiming "I only eat 900 kcals/day and work out 4 hrs/day and not losing? Why?!".
Calorie tracking is an inaccurate discipline, which is why the mantra of "you need to work this out for yourself" is constantly repeated.
This can be summed up as:
Following the guidelines of MFP is the ideal.
If you are not successful in your management goal, you can either increase the accuracy of your logging, or ensure a deficit via other means...as @tomteboda describes a hack of deliberately overestimating caloric intake or underestimating exercise. I did this early on in this process, but in transitioning from deficit to maintenance I'm looking at food as fuel for the next session.
5 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
Eating back the calories legitimately burned on a 3 mile run isn't a ton, it's snack. No one is suggesting eating more than what is burnt, we're advocating properly fueling exercise and not creating a larger than necessary deficit in the name of losing weight a bit faster at the possible expense of health and fitness. To be clear, I'm posting this for the benefit of others reading this thread who may be under the impression that eating back exercise calories is somehow bad.
"Properly fueling" is something that I hear from people like Tess Holliday and Whitney Thore very frequently with respect to mild or moderate exercise that doesn't involve significant calorie drain. I see it in people at the gym who are doing PWOs, protein shakes, protein bars, and then doing a half hour (or less) of light cardio that is followed up with more snacks.
There are people here who are on the "eat those calories" bandwagon, and will talk a good game about nutrition, but then you'll see that they're eating those calories as cookies, ice cream, wine, cakes, chocolates and candy, all the while castigating those who don't "eat those calories".Christine_72 wrote: »I'm genuinely curious, so i have to ask. @heiliskrimsli and @fitmom4lifemfp , are you two friends in real life? You have very, very similar thoughts and opinions.
I have no idea who she is in real life.WinoGelato wrote: »At the end of the day, a wise rabbit used to say, "the winner is the one who eats the most and still loses".
Who determined that eating "the most" is winning? Not everyone is interested in trying to eat "the most". That kind of thing can easily lead to attempting to "out run your fork", which won't help someone lose weight at all. It can lead to overeating and binge eating. And it's why a lot of people get overweight in the first place.VintageFeline wrote: »Why is wanting to be able to eat as much as possible some sort of reflection of a terrible character? That's something used in the pro-ana community, shaming people for eating more than the bare minimum. It's bizarre and somewhat alarming to me that this language is being used prolifically by two users in this forum who get hyper defensive when called on it.
And the FA/HAES community seems to be very focused on consuming the largest possible quantity of food at any given time, often under the guise of "fueling" their workouts.VintageFeline wrote: »As my calories lower with weight loss I like to maximise my intake as much as possible. I feel so so much better during my workouts the more I'm able to eat. When I take a diet break I feel like frickin' She Ra because of those few extra calories.
Not everyone is out to maximise intake. There is something in between maximise intake and being anorexic. Some, like (based on my reading of her comments) @fitmom4lifemfp and I have decided that the path that works for us is in the middle. Why are you so insistent that everyone's path needs to be "maximise intake" and so opposed to anyone hearing that there are alternatives to "maximising intake"?
It's really interesting to me that you associate the suggestions in this thread of "properly fueling", which are coming from people who are healthy, active, athletic, some are even endurance athletes - some still losing weight and many actually in maintenance now and suggesting that it is in the spirit of extreme proponents of the HAES/Fat Acceptance movement - which has nothing to do with this thread at all. Why bring it up? Why does suggesting that a person should eat food to fuel their activity level, to keep a modest deficit and not lose weight too quickly automatically remind you of someone who you clearly are so disgusted by, from your comments in other threads on this topic? Why do you not look at the successful results of the people in this community who are proponents of fueling their body but instead liken anyone saying that it is ok to eat back calories as suggesting that people need to stuff their faces with food even if they aren't hungry?
With regards to the quote about the "winner is the one who eats the most and still loses" it came from a veteran member of this community who isn't around anymore - but who was direct, and blunt, and sarcastic but also respectful and kind and empathetic and who gave great advice to countless people on these forums and who helped many, many of us achieve a healthy overall attitude about weight loss and fitness through her patient advice. For many people, overly restricting and constantly striving for the fastest weight loss and the lowest possible calorie intake is what leads to a binge/restrict cycle.19 -
WinoGelato wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
Eating back the calories legitimately burned on a 3 mile run isn't a ton, it's snack. No one is suggesting eating more than what is burnt, we're advocating properly fueling exercise and not creating a larger than necessary deficit in the name of losing weight a bit faster at the possible expense of health and fitness. To be clear, I'm posting this for the benefit of others reading this thread who may be under the impression that eating back exercise calories is somehow bad.
"Properly fueling" is something that I hear from people like Tess Holliday and Whitney Thore very frequently with respect to mild or moderate exercise that doesn't involve significant calorie drain. I see it in people at the gym who are doing PWOs, protein shakes, protein bars, and then doing a half hour (or less) of light cardio that is followed up with more snacks.
There are people here who are on the "eat those calories" bandwagon, and will talk a good game about nutrition, but then you'll see that they're eating those calories as cookies, ice cream, wine, cakes, chocolates and candy, all the while castigating those who don't "eat those calories".Christine_72 wrote: »I'm genuinely curious, so i have to ask. @heiliskrimsli and @fitmom4lifemfp , are you two friends in real life? You have very, very similar thoughts and opinions.
I have no idea who she is in real life.WinoGelato wrote: »At the end of the day, a wise rabbit used to say, "the winner is the one who eats the most and still loses".
Who determined that eating "the most" is winning? Not everyone is interested in trying to eat "the most". That kind of thing can easily lead to attempting to "out run your fork", which won't help someone lose weight at all. It can lead to overeating and binge eating. And it's why a lot of people get overweight in the first place.VintageFeline wrote: »Why is wanting to be able to eat as much as possible some sort of reflection of a terrible character? That's something used in the pro-ana community, shaming people for eating more than the bare minimum. It's bizarre and somewhat alarming to me that this language is being used prolifically by two users in this forum who get hyper defensive when called on it.
And the FA/HAES community seems to be very focused on consuming the largest possible quantity of food at any given time, often under the guise of "fueling" their workouts.VintageFeline wrote: »As my calories lower with weight loss I like to maximise my intake as much as possible. I feel so so much better during my workouts the more I'm able to eat. When I take a diet break I feel like frickin' She Ra because of those few extra calories.
Not everyone is out to maximise intake. There is something in between maximise intake and being anorexic. Some, like (based on my reading of her comments) @fitmom4lifemfp and I have decided that the path that works for us is in the middle. Why are you so insistent that everyone's path needs to be "maximise intake" and so opposed to anyone hearing that there are alternatives to "maximising intake"?
It's really interesting to me that you associate the suggestions in this thread of "properly fueling", which are coming from people who are healthy, active, athletic, some are even endurance athletes - some still losing weight and many actually in maintenance now and suggesting that it is in the spirit of extreme proponents of the HAES/Fat Acceptance movement - which has nothing to do with this thread at all. Why bring it up?
Because I have seen a focus on volume eating here, from several people, that I also see in those communities. Things like choosing to eat an ice cream made with indigestible ingredients so that they can consume a pint a day, or other methods of making "mocK" foods just to increase volume of consumption. That, to me, is disturbing.
Also disturbing is the implication that not being focused on getting the most food volume possible is an "ascetic" life of misery and deprivation and not enjoying your food. The way people have described a lifestyle that doesn't involve actively trying to eat more quantity of food doesn't at all represent what my actual life and experience is like. I don't know where they're getting the impression that anything other than trying to "eat the most" is ascetic misery and deprivation.Why does suggesting that a person should eat food to fuel their activity level, to keep a modest deficit and not lose weight too quickly automatically remind you of someone who you clearly are so disgusted by, from your comments in other threads on this topic?
Because of the things I just mentioned. Because I've seen on this very site people saying that not having dessert every day is automatically deprivation.Why do you not look at the successful results of the people in this community who are proponents of fueling their body but instead liken anyone saying that it is ok to eat back calories as suggesting that people need to stuff their faces with food even if they aren't hungry?
Many of those who are promoting the "eat the most" are obese, overweight, or have lost weight very slowly (35 pounds in two years slowly) and that doesn't really seem like a high degree of success.With regards to the quote about the "winner is the one who eats the most and still loses" it came from a veteran member of this community who isn't around anymore - but who was direct, and blunt, and sarcastic but also respectful and kind and empathetic and who gave great advice to countless people on these forums and who helped many, many of us achieve a healthy overall attitude about weight loss and fitness through her patient advice. For many people, overly restricting and constantly striving for the fastest weight loss and the lowest possible calorie intake is what leads to a binge/restrict cycle.
You appear to be a volume eater, and that's likely never going to change for you. Maybe you can focus on eating "the most" you can and not have it lead you to being overweight or obese in the future. That, however, doesn't apply to everyone, and "eating the most" is exactly how many people get overweight to begin with - they start trying to outrun their fork - so I question whether that mentality of always chasing the biggest volume is really that beneficial.
1 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
Eating back the calories legitimately burned on a 3 mile run isn't a ton, it's snack. No one is suggesting eating more than what is burnt, we're advocating properly fueling exercise and not creating a larger than necessary deficit in the name of losing weight a bit faster at the possible expense of health and fitness. To be clear, I'm posting this for the benefit of others reading this thread who may be under the impression that eating back exercise calories is somehow bad.
"Properly fueling" is something that I hear from people like Tess Holliday and Whitney Thore very frequently with respect to mild or moderate exercise that doesn't involve significant calorie drain. I see it in people at the gym who are doing PWOs, protein shakes, protein bars, and then doing a half hour (or less) of light cardio that is followed up with more snacks.
There are people here who are on the "eat those calories" bandwagon, and will talk a good game about nutrition, but then you'll see that they're eating those calories as cookies, ice cream, wine, cakes, chocolates and candy, all the while castigating those who don't "eat those calories".Christine_72 wrote: »I'm genuinely curious, so i have to ask. @heiliskrimsli and @fitmom4lifemfp , are you two friends in real life? You have very, very similar thoughts and opinions.
I have no idea who she is in real life.WinoGelato wrote: »At the end of the day, a wise rabbit used to say, "the winner is the one who eats the most and still loses".
Who determined that eating "the most" is winning? Not everyone is interested in trying to eat "the most". That kind of thing can easily lead to attempting to "out run your fork", which won't help someone lose weight at all. It can lead to overeating and binge eating. And it's why a lot of people get overweight in the first place.VintageFeline wrote: »Why is wanting to be able to eat as much as possible some sort of reflection of a terrible character? That's something used in the pro-ana community, shaming people for eating more than the bare minimum. It's bizarre and somewhat alarming to me that this language is being used prolifically by two users in this forum who get hyper defensive when called on it.
And the FA/HAES community seems to be very focused on consuming the largest possible quantity of food at any given time, often under the guise of "fueling" their workouts.VintageFeline wrote: »As my calories lower with weight loss I like to maximise my intake as much as possible. I feel so so much better during my workouts the more I'm able to eat. When I take a diet break I feel like frickin' She Ra because of those few extra calories.
Not everyone is out to maximise intake. There is something in between maximise intake and being anorexic. Some, like (based on my reading of her comments) @fitmom4lifemfp and I have decided that the path that works for us is in the middle. Why are you so insistent that everyone's path needs to be "maximise intake" and so opposed to anyone hearing that there are alternatives to "maximising intake"?
It's really interesting to me that you associate the suggestions in this thread of "properly fueling", which are coming from people who are healthy, active, athletic, some are even endurance athletes - some still losing weight and many actually in maintenance now and suggesting that it is in the spirit of extreme proponents of the HAES/Fat Acceptance movement - which has nothing to do with this thread at all. Why bring it up?
Because I have seen a focus on volume eating here, from several people, that I also see in those communities. Things like choosing to eat an ice cream made with indigestible ingredients so that they can consume a pint a day, or other methods of making "mocK" foods just to increase volume of consumption. That, to me, is disturbing.
Also disturbing is the implication that not being focused on getting the most food volume possible is an "ascetic" life of misery and deprivation and not enjoying your food. The way people have described a lifestyle that doesn't involve actively trying to eat more quantity of food doesn't at all represent what my actual life and experience is like. I don't know where they're getting the impression that anything other than trying to "eat the most" is ascetic misery and deprivation.Why does suggesting that a person should eat food to fuel their activity level, to keep a modest deficit and not lose weight too quickly automatically remind you of someone who you clearly are so disgusted by, from your comments in other threads on this topic?
Because of the things I just mentioned. Because I've seen on this very site people saying that not having dessert every day is automatically deprivation.Why do you not look at the successful results of the people in this community who are proponents of fueling their body but instead liken anyone saying that it is ok to eat back calories as suggesting that people need to stuff their faces with food even if they aren't hungry?
Many of those who are promoting the "eat the most" are obese, overweight, or have lost weight very slowly (35 pounds in two years slowly) and that doesn't really seem like a high degree of success.With regards to the quote about the "winner is the one who eats the most and still loses" it came from a veteran member of this community who isn't around anymore - but who was direct, and blunt, and sarcastic but also respectful and kind and empathetic and who gave great advice to countless people on these forums and who helped many, many of us achieve a healthy overall attitude about weight loss and fitness through her patient advice. For many people, overly restricting and constantly striving for the fastest weight loss and the lowest possible calorie intake is what leads to a binge/restrict cycle.
You appear to be a volume eater, and that's likely never going to change for you. Maybe you can focus on eating "the most" you can and not have it lead you to being overweight or obese in the future. That, however, doesn't apply to everyone, and "eating the most" is exactly how many people get overweight to begin with - they start trying to outrun their fork - so I question whether that mentality of always chasing the biggest volume is really that beneficial.
In *this particular* thread, I think most of the people engaging with you are actually athletes or very active. That's why we tend to be so big on eating, because we have aggressive fitness goals. I can't speak for anyone else, but when I began counting calories my weight came off really quickly (40+ pounds in about eight months). Do I like to eat as much as I can while maintaining my weight? Yes, I do. But that doesn't necessarily mean volume. I actually avoid the vast majority of reduced calorie or special diet foods because I don't care for the taste. Eating "more" could mean adding a baked potato to dinner or having avocado or a glass of wine.
"Eating the most" doesn't necessarily mean "volume eating." It can mean eating in a way that you enjoy, a way that makes you feel good physically.
You seem determined to twist this into some kind of pathological behavior or a strategy of the chronically overweight.
I can personally say that I'm not outrunning my fork. On days when I'm less active, my lower base calories feel fine. When I move more, I want to eat more and that seems like a perfectly balanced and healthy way to live.9 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
Eating back the calories legitimately burned on a 3 mile run isn't a ton, it's snack. No one is suggesting eating more than what is burnt, we're advocating properly fueling exercise and not creating a larger than necessary deficit in the name of losing weight a bit faster at the possible expense of health and fitness. To be clear, I'm posting this for the benefit of others reading this thread who may be under the impression that eating back exercise calories is somehow bad.
"Properly fueling" is something that I hear from people like Tess Holliday and Whitney Thore very frequently with respect to mild or moderate exercise that doesn't involve significant calorie drain. I see it in people at the gym who are doing PWOs, protein shakes, protein bars, and then doing a half hour (or less) of light cardio that is followed up with more snacks.
There are people here who are on the "eat those calories" bandwagon, and will talk a good game about nutrition, but then you'll see that they're eating those calories as cookies, ice cream, wine, cakes, chocolates and candy, all the while castigating those who don't "eat those calories".Christine_72 wrote: »I'm genuinely curious, so i have to ask. @heiliskrimsli and @fitmom4lifemfp , are you two friends in real life? You have very, very similar thoughts and opinions.
I have no idea who she is in real life.WinoGelato wrote: »At the end of the day, a wise rabbit used to say, "the winner is the one who eats the most and still loses".
Who determined that eating "the most" is winning? Not everyone is interested in trying to eat "the most". That kind of thing can easily lead to attempting to "out run your fork", which won't help someone lose weight at all. It can lead to overeating and binge eating. And it's why a lot of people get overweight in the first place.VintageFeline wrote: »Why is wanting to be able to eat as much as possible some sort of reflection of a terrible character? That's something used in the pro-ana community, shaming people for eating more than the bare minimum. It's bizarre and somewhat alarming to me that this language is being used prolifically by two users in this forum who get hyper defensive when called on it.
And the FA/HAES community seems to be very focused on consuming the largest possible quantity of food at any given time, often under the guise of "fueling" their workouts.VintageFeline wrote: »As my calories lower with weight loss I like to maximise my intake as much as possible. I feel so so much better during my workouts the more I'm able to eat. When I take a diet break I feel like frickin' She Ra because of those few extra calories.
Not everyone is out to maximise intake. There is something in between maximise intake and being anorexic. Some, like (based on my reading of her comments) @fitmom4lifemfp and I have decided that the path that works for us is in the middle. Why are you so insistent that everyone's path needs to be "maximise intake" and so opposed to anyone hearing that there are alternatives to "maximising intake"?
It's really interesting to me that you associate the suggestions in this thread of "properly fueling", which are coming from people who are healthy, active, athletic, some are even endurance athletes - some still losing weight and many actually in maintenance now and suggesting that it is in the spirit of extreme proponents of the HAES/Fat Acceptance movement - which has nothing to do with this thread at all. Why bring it up?
Because I have seen a focus on volume eating here, from several people, that I also see in those communities. Things like choosing to eat an ice cream made with indigestible ingredients so that they can consume a pint a day, or other methods of making "mocK" foods just to increase volume of consumption. That, to me, is disturbing.
Also disturbing is the implication that not being focused on getting the most food volume possible is an "ascetic" life of misery and deprivation and not enjoying your food. The way people have described a lifestyle that doesn't involve actively trying to eat more quantity of food doesn't at all represent what my actual life and experience is like. I don't know where they're getting the impression that anything other than trying to "eat the most" is ascetic misery and deprivation.Why does suggesting that a person should eat food to fuel their activity level, to keep a modest deficit and not lose weight too quickly automatically remind you of someone who you clearly are so disgusted by, from your comments in other threads on this topic?
Because of the things I just mentioned. Because I've seen on this very site people saying that not having dessert every day is automatically deprivation.Why do you not look at the successful results of the people in this community who are proponents of fueling their body but instead liken anyone saying that it is ok to eat back calories as suggesting that people need to stuff their faces with food even if they aren't hungry?
Many of those who are promoting the "eat the most" are obese, overweight, or have lost weight very slowly (35 pounds in two years slowly) and that doesn't really seem like a high degree of success.With regards to the quote about the "winner is the one who eats the most and still loses" it came from a veteran member of this community who isn't around anymore - but who was direct, and blunt, and sarcastic but also respectful and kind and empathetic and who gave great advice to countless people on these forums and who helped many, many of us achieve a healthy overall attitude about weight loss and fitness through her patient advice. For many people, overly restricting and constantly striving for the fastest weight loss and the lowest possible calorie intake is what leads to a binge/restrict cycle.
You appear to be a volume eater, and that's likely never going to change for you. Maybe you can focus on eating "the most" you can and not have it lead you to being overweight or obese in the future. That, however, doesn't apply to everyone, and "eating the most" is exactly how many people get overweight to begin with - they start trying to outrun their fork - so I question whether that mentality of always chasing the biggest volume is really that beneficial.
Most people in this thread who are talking about this are very active people and/or competitive or recreational athletes, not friggin' HAES or whatever people.
I was a competitive athlete for much of my life...I was a combat ready Marine...I never had any weight issues in my life until I took a desk job and at that, it was pretty easy to take off and I've maintained for about 4 years very easily. I'm no longer a competitive athlete, but I am a recreational athlete...I'm lean, healthy, and fit and I know how to properly feed my body for performance and recovery...as an athlete, it's something I learned a long time ago...athletes eat and train...lean, healthy, and fit people eat and train...I'm not sure why this would be so disturbing to you...athletes world over do it.12 -
This week I've used my workout calories largely for extra bowls of my should be trademarked PB&J oatmeal. Damn that disgusting fake food I am eating because I'm a disordered soon to return to being obese and a weight loss failure because I didn't lose the weight in a few months terrible human being.
That's what this is right? That because a lot of us had weight to lose and maybe didn't lose it as fast as some random person thinks we should then we're morally inferior and of poor character. And honestly, if that's what someone thinks then I think they need to look in the mirror.
It's taken me two years to lose a little over 60lbs. I still have maybe 20 to go. I happen to have actual mental disorders unrelated to food so please don't try and project some sort of other disorder on swathes of forum users, it's disgusting and insulting.23 -
VintageFeline wrote: »This week I've used my workout calories largely for extra bowls of my should be trademarked PB&J oatmeal. Damn that disgusting fake food I am eating because I'm a disordered soon to return to being obese and a weight loss failure because I didn't lose the weight in a few months terrible human being.
That's what this is right? That because a lot of us had weight to lose and maybe didn't lose it as fast as some random person thinks we should then we're morally inferior and of poor character. And honestly, if that's what someone thinks then I think they need to look in the mirror.
It's taken me two years to lose a little over 60lbs. I still have maybe 20 to go. I happen to have actual mental disorders unrelated to food so please don't try and project some sort of other disorder on swathes of forum users, it's disgusting and insulting.
i know i certainly feel like a failure having lost 25 pounds in a year while exponentially increasing my strength and endurance. but i also occasionally enjoy indigestible ice cream and since i'm not to goal weight i know i'm a disgusting fat person and i'm probably morally bankrupt because i don't actually hate myself.15 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
Eating back the calories legitimately burned on a 3 mile run isn't a ton, it's snack. No one is suggesting eating more than what is burnt, we're advocating properly fueling exercise and not creating a larger than necessary deficit in the name of losing weight a bit faster at the possible expense of health and fitness. To be clear, I'm posting this for the benefit of others reading this thread who may be under the impression that eating back exercise calories is somehow bad.
"Properly fueling" is something that I hear from people like Tess Holliday and Whitney Thore very frequently with respect to mild or moderate exercise that doesn't involve significant calorie drain. I see it in people at the gym who are doing PWOs, protein shakes, protein bars, and then doing a half hour (or less) of light cardio that is followed up with more snacks.
There are people here who are on the "eat those calories" bandwagon, and will talk a good game about nutrition, but then you'll see that they're eating those calories as cookies, ice cream, wine, cakes, chocolates and candy, all the while castigating those who don't "eat those calories".Christine_72 wrote: »I'm genuinely curious, so i have to ask. @heiliskrimsli and @fitmom4lifemfp , are you two friends in real life? You have very, very similar thoughts and opinions.
I have no idea who she is in real life.WinoGelato wrote: »At the end of the day, a wise rabbit used to say, "the winner is the one who eats the most and still loses".
Who determined that eating "the most" is winning? Not everyone is interested in trying to eat "the most". That kind of thing can easily lead to attempting to "out run your fork", which won't help someone lose weight at all. It can lead to overeating and binge eating. And it's why a lot of people get overweight in the first place.VintageFeline wrote: »Why is wanting to be able to eat as much as possible some sort of reflection of a terrible character? That's something used in the pro-ana community, shaming people for eating more than the bare minimum. It's bizarre and somewhat alarming to me that this language is being used prolifically by two users in this forum who get hyper defensive when called on it.
And the FA/HAES community seems to be very focused on consuming the largest possible quantity of food at any given time, often under the guise of "fueling" their workouts.VintageFeline wrote: »As my calories lower with weight loss I like to maximise my intake as much as possible. I feel so so much better during my workouts the more I'm able to eat. When I take a diet break I feel like frickin' She Ra because of those few extra calories.
Not everyone is out to maximise intake. There is something in between maximise intake and being anorexic. Some, like (based on my reading of her comments) @fitmom4lifemfp and I have decided that the path that works for us is in the middle. Why are you so insistent that everyone's path needs to be "maximise intake" and so opposed to anyone hearing that there are alternatives to "maximising intake"?
It's really interesting to me that you associate the suggestions in this thread of "properly fueling", which are coming from people who are healthy, active, athletic, some are even endurance athletes - some still losing weight and many actually in maintenance now and suggesting that it is in the spirit of extreme proponents of the HAES/Fat Acceptance movement - which has nothing to do with this thread at all. Why bring it up?
Because I have seen a focus on volume eating here, from several people, that I also see in those communities. Things like choosing to eat an ice cream made with indigestible ingredients so that they can consume a pint a day, or other methods of making "mocK" foods just to increase volume of consumption. That, to me, is disturbing.
You've yet to give me any indication that you are a bigger ingredient snob than I am. (I'm less vocal about it.) I thought I would hate ice cream that uses erythritol but when I got a coupon for a free pint I decided to try it, and to my surprise, it wasn't bad. It's no Ben & Jerry's, but that's a good thing, because a lot of my excess weight came from eating B&J a pint at a whack.
It's so freeing to know that if I want to eat a whole pint of Halo Top or Enlightened I can, and at under 300 calories a pint, I can make it fit into my calorie budget. So far I haven't - it just doesn't light up my pleasure centers the way some flavors of B&J do, and that is also a good thing.
It's wonderful to have found a satisfactory low calorie alternative to a food that is dangerously triggering for me.
I got a practically free pint of Yo2 Mudslide last night and alas, that IS dangerous. There are three servings left and I can't stop thinking about it. Alas, particular flavors of full fat and sugar ice cream remain problematic foods for me. While I'm always working on moderation, some foods I just need to abstain from.
Is the "mock" food protein fluff? I tried it a few times and didn't care for it. I'm not crazy about cooking with protein powder. Mine has very few ingredients, but I still need to let it get swallowed by strong flavors in smoothies to make it enjoyable. But I'm happy for the volume eaters who tried it and love it.
If you've tried any of these things you're knocking, what was your experience?2 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
Eating back the calories legitimately burned on a 3 mile run isn't a ton, it's snack. No one is suggesting eating more than what is burnt, we're advocating properly fueling exercise and not creating a larger than necessary deficit in the name of losing weight a bit faster at the possible expense of health and fitness. To be clear, I'm posting this for the benefit of others reading this thread who may be under the impression that eating back exercise calories is somehow bad.
"Properly fueling" is something that I hear from people like Tess Holliday and Whitney Thore very frequently with respect to mild or moderate exercise that doesn't involve significant calorie drain. I see it in people at the gym who are doing PWOs, protein shakes, protein bars, and then doing a half hour (or less) of light cardio that is followed up with more snacks.
There are people here who are on the "eat those calories" bandwagon, and will talk a good game about nutrition, but then you'll see that they're eating those calories as cookies, ice cream, wine, cakes, chocolates and candy, all the while castigating those who don't "eat those calories".Christine_72 wrote: »I'm genuinely curious, so i have to ask. @heiliskrimsli and @fitmom4lifemfp , are you two friends in real life? You have very, very similar thoughts and opinions.
I have no idea who she is in real life.WinoGelato wrote: »At the end of the day, a wise rabbit used to say, "the winner is the one who eats the most and still loses".
Who determined that eating "the most" is winning? Not everyone is interested in trying to eat "the most". That kind of thing can easily lead to attempting to "out run your fork", which won't help someone lose weight at all. It can lead to overeating and binge eating. And it's why a lot of people get overweight in the first place.VintageFeline wrote: »Why is wanting to be able to eat as much as possible some sort of reflection of a terrible character? That's something used in the pro-ana community, shaming people for eating more than the bare minimum. It's bizarre and somewhat alarming to me that this language is being used prolifically by two users in this forum who get hyper defensive when called on it.
And the FA/HAES community seems to be very focused on consuming the largest possible quantity of food at any given time, often under the guise of "fueling" their workouts.VintageFeline wrote: »As my calories lower with weight loss I like to maximise my intake as much as possible. I feel so so much better during my workouts the more I'm able to eat. When I take a diet break I feel like frickin' She Ra because of those few extra calories.
Not everyone is out to maximise intake. There is something in between maximise intake and being anorexic. Some, like (based on my reading of her comments) @fitmom4lifemfp and I have decided that the path that works for us is in the middle. Why are you so insistent that everyone's path needs to be "maximise intake" and so opposed to anyone hearing that there are alternatives to "maximising intake"?
It's really interesting to me that you associate the suggestions in this thread of "properly fueling", which are coming from people who are healthy, active, athletic, some are even endurance athletes - some still losing weight and many actually in maintenance now and suggesting that it is in the spirit of extreme proponents of the HAES/Fat Acceptance movement - which has nothing to do with this thread at all. Why bring it up?
Because I have seen a focus on volume eating here, from several people, that I also see in those communities. Things like choosing to eat an ice cream made with indigestible ingredients so that they can consume a pint a day, or other methods of making "mocK" foods just to increase volume of consumption. That, to me, is disturbing.
My underweight mom is a volume eater, but of low calorie whole foods. Is it the volume part that disturbs you, or the "mock" foods part? Seems like both. I'm getting a chuckle at the idea of my little mom's high volume consumption of vegetables being disturbing.
Ps - she's underweight because she doesn't eat enough for her activity level.11 -
IMO, any of the abstract strategies (eat back exercise, don't eat back exercise, etc.) are a starting point.
More important, again IMO, is actual weight loss rate. After around 6 weeks of consistency (maybe less), one has a pretty good idea of one's actual weight loss rate, and can tweak that to a healthy level. That tweaking can be via eating back more (or less) exercise, doing more (or less) exercise, increasing (decreasing) base calories, etc. OP adjusted by not eating exercise calories. Reasonable personal strategy in the right circumstances; bad universal advice.
There's decent research suggesting that losing weight "too fast" is a sub-optimal plan. How fast is "too fast"? That's a bit more controversial. I think the "about 1% body weight per week, maximum, less as goal approaches" rule of thumb is pretty good, fairly conservative, for those not under close medical supervision.
If one is morbidly obese or otherwise experiencing weight-related health issues, then there might be such a thing as losing weight "too slowly". Otherwise, what difference does it make if some choose to lose more slowly than the maximum healthful rate? Eating the most one can, while still losing, can be a decent long-term-compliance strategy for some.
For new folks (who don't know their actual loss rate yet), my advice would be that it's fine to not eat back exercise calories as long as your target weight loss rate is not already extreme, and your exercise calories are not a large fraction of your daily calorie goal. If target loss rate is aggressive (2 pounds per week) or exercise calories (conservatively estimated) are above the low hundreds, then I'd suggest that the person eat back some of the exercise (if using MFP as designed). That's a starting point. They should then adjust based on actual results.
Personally, I lost weight reasonably fast (63 pounds in 10-11 months, down to a BMI around 20, so I was slowing loss rate to a crawl for the last months). I ate back pretty much all of my carefully-estimated exercise calories. I was (for a decade plus), and am, a recreational athlete and occasionally a competitive one. When I ate at MFP's suggested calorie goal, I lost too fast (more than 1% - got fatigued, a bit weak), and I increased my eating as soon as I realized it. I didn't, and still don't, eat a lot of so-called "hyperpalatable" or "junk" food, because it's (IMO) mostly icky tasting and unsatisfying. Except craft beer, I mean.
8 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
Eating back the calories legitimately burned on a 3 mile run isn't a ton, it's snack. No one is suggesting eating more than what is burnt, we're advocating properly fueling exercise and not creating a larger than necessary deficit in the name of losing weight a bit faster at the possible expense of health and fitness. To be clear, I'm posting this for the benefit of others reading this thread who may be under the impression that eating back exercise calories is somehow bad.
"Properly fueling" is something that I hear from people like Tess Holliday and Whitney Thore very frequently with respect to mild or moderate exercise that doesn't involve significant calorie drain. I see it in people at the gym who are doing PWOs, protein shakes, protein bars, and then doing a half hour (or less) of light cardio that is followed up with more snacks.
There are people here who are on the "eat those calories" bandwagon, and will talk a good game about nutrition, but then you'll see that they're eating those calories as cookies, ice cream, wine, cakes, chocolates and candy, all the while castigating those who don't "eat those calories".Christine_72 wrote: »I'm genuinely curious, so i have to ask. @heiliskrimsli and @fitmom4lifemfp , are you two friends in real life? You have very, very similar thoughts and opinions.
I have no idea who she is in real life.WinoGelato wrote: »At the end of the day, a wise rabbit used to say, "the winner is the one who eats the most and still loses".
Who determined that eating "the most" is winning? Not everyone is interested in trying to eat "the most". That kind of thing can easily lead to attempting to "out run your fork", which won't help someone lose weight at all. It can lead to overeating and binge eating. And it's why a lot of people get overweight in the first place.VintageFeline wrote: »Why is wanting to be able to eat as much as possible some sort of reflection of a terrible character? That's something used in the pro-ana community, shaming people for eating more than the bare minimum. It's bizarre and somewhat alarming to me that this language is being used prolifically by two users in this forum who get hyper defensive when called on it.
And the FA/HAES community seems to be very focused on consuming the largest possible quantity of food at any given time, often under the guise of "fueling" their workouts.VintageFeline wrote: »As my calories lower with weight loss I like to maximise my intake as much as possible. I feel so so much better during my workouts the more I'm able to eat. When I take a diet break I feel like frickin' She Ra because of those few extra calories.
Not everyone is out to maximise intake. There is something in between maximise intake and being anorexic. Some, like (based on my reading of her comments) @fitmom4lifemfp and I have decided that the path that works for us is in the middle. Why are you so insistent that everyone's path needs to be "maximise intake" and so opposed to anyone hearing that there are alternatives to "maximising intake"?
It's really interesting to me that you associate the suggestions in this thread of "properly fueling", which are coming from people who are healthy, active, athletic, some are even endurance athletes - some still losing weight and many actually in maintenance now and suggesting that it is in the spirit of extreme proponents of the HAES/Fat Acceptance movement - which has nothing to do with this thread at all. Why bring it up?
Because I have seen a focus on volume eating here, from several people, that I also see in those communities. Things like choosing to eat an ice cream made with indigestible ingredients so that they can consume a pint a day, or other methods of making "mocK" foods just to increase volume of consumption. That, to me, is disturbing.
Also disturbing is the implication that not being focused on getting the most food volume possible is an "ascetic" life of misery and deprivation and not enjoying your food. The way people have described a lifestyle that doesn't involve actively trying to eat more quantity of food doesn't at all represent what my actual life and experience is like. I don't know where they're getting the impression that anything other than trying to "eat the most" is ascetic misery and deprivation.Why does suggesting that a person should eat food to fuel their activity level, to keep a modest deficit and not lose weight too quickly automatically remind you of someone who you clearly are so disgusted by, from your comments in other threads on this topic?
Because of the things I just mentioned. Because I've seen on this very site people saying that not having dessert every day is automatically deprivation.Why do you not look at the successful results of the people in this community who are proponents of fueling their body but instead liken anyone saying that it is ok to eat back calories as suggesting that people need to stuff their faces with food even if they aren't hungry?
Many of those who are promoting the "eat the most" are obese, overweight, or have lost weight very slowly (35 pounds in two years slowly) and that doesn't really seem like a high degree of success.With regards to the quote about the "winner is the one who eats the most and still loses" it came from a veteran member of this community who isn't around anymore - but who was direct, and blunt, and sarcastic but also respectful and kind and empathetic and who gave great advice to countless people on these forums and who helped many, many of us achieve a healthy overall attitude about weight loss and fitness through her patient advice. For many people, overly restricting and constantly striving for the fastest weight loss and the lowest possible calorie intake is what leads to a binge/restrict cycle.
You appear to be a volume eater, and that's likely never going to change for you. Maybe you can focus on eating "the most" you can and not have it lead you to being overweight or obese in the future. That, however, doesn't apply to everyone, and "eating the most" is exactly how many people get overweight to begin with - they start trying to outrun their fork - so I question whether that mentality of always chasing the biggest volume is really that beneficial.
It's interesting that your perception of me is as a volume eater, when in fact, I'm anything but that. I can easily be satisfied on two Oreos, or a half serving of Talenti even. I've never tried Halo Top, laugh at something like Arctic Zero ice cream or Walden Farms dressings because of the horrible taste, I would never choose those. That I advocate for eating back exercise calories does not equate to me stuffing my face with as much food as possible, as you've insinuated previously. I really think you may be projecting your own attitudes about food, and your issues with obesity and the way you were raised (you've mentioned blaming your parents for insisting you clean your plate no matter what for the fact that you gained weight) onto others in this community.
Not having dessert every day isn't deprivation. I don't have dessert quite often. But if there is a food that you really love, and you have calories for it - then why not eat it?15 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
Eating back the calories legitimately burned on a 3 mile run isn't a ton, it's snack. No one is suggesting eating more than what is burnt, we're advocating properly fueling exercise and not creating a larger than necessary deficit in the name of losing weight a bit faster at the possible expense of health and fitness. To be clear, I'm posting this for the benefit of others reading this thread who may be under the impression that eating back exercise calories is somehow bad.
"Properly fueling" is something that I hear from people like Tess Holliday and Whitney Thore very frequently with respect to mild or moderate exercise that doesn't involve significant calorie drain. I see it in people at the gym who are doing PWOs, protein shakes, protein bars, and then doing a half hour (or less) of light cardio that is followed up with more snacks.
There are people here who are on the "eat those calories" bandwagon, and will talk a good game about nutrition, but then you'll see that they're eating those calories as cookies, ice cream, wine, cakes, chocolates and candy, all the while castigating those who don't "eat those calories".Christine_72 wrote: »I'm genuinely curious, so i have to ask. @heiliskrimsli and @fitmom4lifemfp , are you two friends in real life? You have very, very similar thoughts and opinions.
I have no idea who she is in real life.WinoGelato wrote: »At the end of the day, a wise rabbit used to say, "the winner is the one who eats the most and still loses".
Who determined that eating "the most" is winning? Not everyone is interested in trying to eat "the most". That kind of thing can easily lead to attempting to "out run your fork", which won't help someone lose weight at all. It can lead to overeating and binge eating. And it's why a lot of people get overweight in the first place.VintageFeline wrote: »Why is wanting to be able to eat as much as possible some sort of reflection of a terrible character? That's something used in the pro-ana community, shaming people for eating more than the bare minimum. It's bizarre and somewhat alarming to me that this language is being used prolifically by two users in this forum who get hyper defensive when called on it.
And the FA/HAES community seems to be very focused on consuming the largest possible quantity of food at any given time, often under the guise of "fueling" their workouts.VintageFeline wrote: »As my calories lower with weight loss I like to maximise my intake as much as possible. I feel so so much better during my workouts the more I'm able to eat. When I take a diet break I feel like frickin' She Ra because of those few extra calories.
Not everyone is out to maximise intake. There is something in between maximise intake and being anorexic. Some, like (based on my reading of her comments) @fitmom4lifemfp and I have decided that the path that works for us is in the middle. Why are you so insistent that everyone's path needs to be "maximise intake" and so opposed to anyone hearing that there are alternatives to "maximising intake"?
Most of this has been addressed, very well, by others, but since part of your response quotes me...
You're seriously likening me to Tess Holliday?? I think we can all agree, based on my profile pic (now woefully out of date, but I like that photo, so it stays for now), that I am not overweight, let alone obese. Also don't subscribe to the idea that you can be healthy at any weight. I do think one can be happy at any weight, but that's an entirely different conversation. Also wouldn't class myself as a volume eater. I did however round out my day with some 72% dark chocolate yesterday, specifically because I didn't want more volume, and I'd already met all my nutritional requirements. There is absolutely nothing wrong with eating cookies, chocolate, ice cream, etc if you have already met your nutritional requirements for the day. Thinking there is is pretty disordered thinking imho.
Maximising intake, as others have pointed out, refers to calories, not necessarily volume. Given that I'm now at goal, I'm reverse dieting to a) find my correct maintenance cals (though I'm reasonably confident it gels pretty well with what my Fitbit says), and b) maximise how many calories I can eat while maintaining my weight. So it's important to me that I use up my allotted calories for the day to meet those goals. I have no need or desire to lose more weight, which is what will happen if I don't use them.
As for when to use one's exercise calories, as others have pointed out, no one here has said they must be used on the day, and many of us do 'save' some of them for the weekend. You only have to read a few posts from people asking if it's okay to do that to see that. You, on the other hand, have never once mentioned banking calories, you've steadfastly maintained you don't use them. Now, apparently you do. Interesting turn.8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 413 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions