What is the purpose of eating back your exercise calories

13

Replies

  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    ryenday wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    ryenday wrote: »
    I’m another one with a very unpopular MFP opinion. I think it really depends on the circumstances of the individual.

    Example 1. Sedentary Male, reasonably tall 25 years old, let’s say MFP gives him 2250 calories to maintain and 1250 calories to lose 2 pounds a week.

    Example 2. Sedentary Female, short and over 50. Let’s say MFP gives her 1500 calories to maintain, but since MFP does not recommend eating below 1200 calories (because that is the minimum level necessary to get necessary nutrients is my understanding why) she gets 1250 to lose .5 pounds a week.

    Both people want to lose as much weight as they can - SAFELY so they both plan to eat at 1250 calories a day.
    However, they then both decide they will start exercising and start doing cardio for 30 minutes each day.

    If our fellow did not eat back his exercise and stayed at 1250 he would now be tracking to lose more than 2 lb a week - an unsafe rate of weight loss. To stay at a healthy rate if weight loss Example 1 should be eating those exercise calories back!

    Our gal, is a different story. 1250 calories is only .5 pound of weight loss a month for her. She can choose her path. Eat the exercise calories back ( because let’s face it, 1250 calories a day isn’t most peoples idea of fun) OR she could choose to continue eating at 1250 and lose weight faster - now at a rate of almost .8 pounds a week (because let’s face it, .5 pounds a week doesn’t even feel like weight loss to many people, they might not even see a difference for months)

    Now, if our gal started doing a long endurance type workout (ran a 1/2 marathon, biked 30 miles) and not just a 30 minute minimum recommended cardio - she would almost certainly need to eat back exercise calories to keep herself fueled for that, even if her overall calories were still under the safe 2 pounds a week loss.

    So eat back your exercise calories or not? If one doesn’t eat back the exercise calories are they still losing weight at a safe 2 lb or less a week? If yes, than I’d say it is the individual’s choice - neither is ‘better’ for all in this circumstance. Is the person doing any extreme activities (High intensity or endurance exercise)? If yes, the individual must consider both weight loss rate and fueling for their activities in their healthy weight loss decision.

    Again, this is a pretty unpopular opinion on MFP. And there are way more individual factors that should play into this decision than we could go into here. Bottom line to me, the individual should do what feels right to them within the general healthy frameworks. And the individual needs to understand that’s everything MFP gives them numbers wise are ESTIMATES based upon AVERAGE persons. Adjustments for individual needs and preferences and results will more than likely be necessary.

    This all comes down to how much weight you need to lose.

    Seriously.

    This is not about feelings, because bodies are adaptable.

    To a point. Then they crash.

    It's not safe to lose 2 pounds a week if you don't have a lot of body fat/weight to lose. All you're going to do is catabolize muscle.

    That's if you can keep the game up without being led into binge cycles.

    Ask me how I know that happens.

    As I said, a very unpopular opinion on MFP.

    I clearly stated the gal was going to change from .5 to .8 pound a week weight loss if she left the exercise calories on the table (average 30 mins cardio a day). Nowhere even near that 2 pounds. estimated calories of 100 to 150 per 1/2 hour based upon real exercise estimates from Apple Watch for 5’3 woman with 50 lb to lose, 30 mins brisk walk or Exercycle averages

    And I thought I clearly stated that more lengthy or more intense exercise most likely needed to be specifically fueled for weight loss to be healthy.

    That's not really vigorous activity, so I think that's okay not to eat back, especially if the woman in question is pretty much otherwise sedentary.

    If the woman in question had a high NEAT, I might feel different.
  • Goingagain
    Goingagain Posts: 30 Member
    I don't eat back mine on a daily basis, but I do have a cheat meal/non tracked dinner,evening drinks etc at the weekend and generally go way over my cals , this to me is the exercise calories.
  • ryenday
    ryenday Posts: 1,540 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    ryenday wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    ryenday wrote: »
    I’m another one with a very unpopular MFP opinion. I think it really depends on the circumstances of the individual.

    Example 1. Sedentary Male, reasonably tall 25 years old, let’s say MFP gives him 2250 calories to maintain and 1250 calories to lose 2 pounds a week.

    Example 2. Sedentary Female, short and over 50. Let’s say MFP gives her 1500 calories to maintain, but since MFP does not recommend eating below 1200 calories (because that is the minimum level necessary to get necessary nutrients is my understanding why) she gets 1250 to lose .5 pounds a week.

    Both people want to lose as much weight as they can - SAFELY so they both plan to eat at 1250 calories a day.
    However, they then both decide they will start exercising and start doing cardio for 30 minutes each day.

    If our fellow did not eat back his exercise and stayed at 1250 he would now be tracking to lose more than 2 lb a week - an unsafe rate of weight loss. To stay at a healthy rate if weight loss Example 1 should be eating those exercise calories back!

    Our gal, is a different story. 1250 calories is only .5 pound of weight loss a month for her. She can choose her path. Eat the exercise calories back ( because let’s face it, 1250 calories a day isn’t most peoples idea of fun) OR she could choose to continue eating at 1250 and lose weight faster - now at a rate of almost .8 pounds a week (because let’s face it, .5 pounds a week doesn’t even feel like weight loss to many people, they might not even see a difference for months)

    Now, if our gal started doing a long endurance type workout (ran a 1/2 marathon, biked 30 miles) and not just a 30 minute minimum recommended cardio - she would almost certainly need to eat back exercise calories to keep herself fueled for that, even if her overall calories were still under the safe 2 pounds a week loss.

    So eat back your exercise calories or not? If one doesn’t eat back the exercise calories are they still losing weight at a safe 2 lb or less a week? If yes, than I’d say it is the individual’s choice - neither is ‘better’ for all in this circumstance. Is the person doing any extreme activities (High intensity or endurance exercise)? If yes, the individual must consider both weight loss rate and fueling for their activities in their healthy weight loss decision.

    Again, this is a pretty unpopular opinion on MFP. And there are way more individual factors that should play into this decision than we could go into here. Bottom line to me, the individual should do what feels right to them within the general healthy frameworks. And the individual needs to understand that’s everything MFP gives them numbers wise are ESTIMATES based upon AVERAGE persons. Adjustments for individual needs and preferences and results will more than likely be necessary.

    This all comes down to how much weight you need to lose.

    Seriously.

    This is not about feelings, because bodies are adaptable.

    To a point. Then they crash.

    It's not safe to lose 2 pounds a week if you don't have a lot of body fat/weight to lose. All you're going to do is catabolize muscle.

    That's if you can keep the game up without being led into binge cycles.

    Ask me how I know that happens.

    As I said, a very unpopular opinion on MFP.

    I clearly stated the gal was going to change from .5 to .8 pound a week weight loss if she left the exercise calories on the table (average 30 mins cardio a day). Nowhere even near that 2 pounds. estimated calories of 100 to 150 per 1/2 hour based upon real exercise estimates from Apple Watch for 5’3 woman with 50 lb to lose, 30 mins brisk walk or Exercycle averages

    And I thought I clearly stated that more lengthy or more intense exercise most likely needed to be specifically fueled for weight loss to be healthy.

    That's not really vigorous activity, so I think that's okay not to eat back, especially if the woman in question is pretty much otherwise sedentary.

    If the woman in question had a high NEAT, I might feel different.

    Yeah, I specifically made an example of a sedentary woman. I doubt a woman with a high NEAT is either sedentary or losing only .5 pounds per week on 1250 calories, but I suppose it is possible if she were shorter than 5 feet.

    My TLDR is: eating back exercise calories is an individual thing - pretty much necessary for some, but at discretion of other person- because people’s circumstances are so varied. Intense or long length workouts, height of person, ratio of calories allowance to weight loss rate etc. etc. etc. all come into play. And remember online calculators a including MFP can only give estimates of average persons, YMMV.

    Good luck OP!
  • ryenday
    ryenday Posts: 1,540 Member
    edited September 2017
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    JRSINAZ wrote: »
    If you want to lose weight slow. Get depressed when you plateau etc then go ahead and have twinkie to eat back all that hard work you did today. I do not. Losing and loving it here.

    That's a really interesting theory. Is it real?

    I lost about 75 pounds, and I've kept it off for years now.

    Last night I had a heaping plate of tacos for dinner. About 1,200 delicious calories worth. It was a yummy protein bomb.

    Also yesterday I biked 27 hilly miles in 2 hours. And walked 14k steps over the course of the day. A walk to get coffee, a walk at lunch.

    In the last week I've done 120 bike miles. Just got some new wheels, having a lot of fun riding them. New toys are the best motivators.

    So I can't agree that eating your exercise calories makes you a fat and depressed loser. It just means you understand math.

    I’m curious, how many hours a week does that total? Biking and Walks (intentional choice to use walking to get someplace others would likely choose a different form of transportation so count walk from office 2 blocks to coffee shop but don’t count parked a bit farther away in the grocery store parking lot)?

    I could be way off, but I’m guessing that amounts to 20 or 30 hours a week?
  • estherdragonbat
    estherdragonbat Posts: 5,283 Member
    My personal goal is to get in at least 2 hours of walking daily. Not necessarily all at once; I'll take a 15-minute run to the corner grocery, then 45 minutes to and from the library, etc. If I get in 90 minutes, I'll usually let it balance with the days where I walk more like 3 hours. Less than 90 minutes and I do an hour on the fitness glider in my basement. (I know it's not a very well-thought-of machine, but it works for me and my treadmill has already tried to kill me once.)

    I also do resistance training three days a week.

    So, in general, and having done a couple of months of the '24 hour fitness challenge' thread, I seem to get about 70 hours of exercise/month. (Please note: I am a sporadically-employed freelance editor with no drivers' license. I've actually got time for this.)
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    ryenday wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    JRSINAZ wrote: »
    If you want to lose weight slow. Get depressed when you plateau etc then go ahead and have twinkie to eat back all that hard work you did today. I do not. Losing and loving it here.

    That's a really interesting theory. Is it real?

    I lost about 75 pounds, and I've kept it off for years now.

    Last night I had a heaping plate of tacos for dinner. About 1,200 delicious calories worth. It was a yummy protein bomb.

    Also yesterday I biked 27 hilly miles in 2 hours. And walked 14k steps over the course of the day. A walk to get coffee, a walk at lunch.

    In the last week I've done 120 bike miles. Just got some new wheels, having a lot of fun riding them. New toys are the best motivators.

    So I can't agree that eating your exercise calories makes you a fat and depressed loser. It just means you understand math.

    I’m curious, how many hours a week does that total? Biking and Walks (intentional choice to use walking to get someplace others would likely choose a different form of transportation so count walk from office 2 blocks to coffee shop but don’t count parked a bit farther away in the grocery store parking lot)?

    I could be way off, but I’m guessing that amounts to 20 or 30 hours a week?

    Cycling is typically about 8 hours a week. It's been more this week because I just took delivery of a set of aerodynamic carbon fiber wheels, and I'm enjoying my new toy. (About 13 mph typically because this is a very hilly town.)

    Walking, it's hard to say because I don't track it as a timed thing. I live in Seattle where parking and traffic are horrible so it's more convenient and pleasant to run most errands on foot or bike than in a car.
  • ryenday
    ryenday Posts: 1,540 Member
    edited September 2017
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    ryenday wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    JRSINAZ wrote: »
    If you want to lose weight slow. Get depressed when you plateau etc then go ahead and have twinkie to eat back all that hard work you did today. I do not. Losing and loving it here.

    That's a really interesting theory. Is it real?

    I lost about 75 pounds, and I've kept it off for years now.

    Last night I had a heaping plate of tacos for dinner. About 1,200 delicious calories worth. It was a yummy protein bomb.

    Also yesterday I biked 27 hilly miles in 2 hours. And walked 14k steps over the course of the day. A walk to get coffee, a walk at lunch.

    In the last week I've done 120 bike miles. Just got some new wheels, having a lot of fun riding them. New toys are the best motivators.

    So I can't agree that eating your exercise calories makes you a fat and depressed loser. It just means you understand math.

    I’m curious, how many hours a week does that total? Biking and Walks (intentional choice to use walking to get someplace others would likely choose a different form of transportation so count walk from office 2 blocks to coffee shop but don’t count parked a bit farther away in the grocery store parking lot)?

    I could be way off, but I’m guessing that amounts to 20 or 30 hours a week?


    Would you really drive instead of walking two blocks? When you don't have to carry anything?

    When you drive, you always have to be on alert in case a kid or a dog runs out from behind a parked car or something. It's mentally taxing. Walking means you can relax, maybe multitask in ways you can't in the car. It's illegal to have a cell phone in your hand when you drive in my state now. But I can read a text while I walk.


    Thanks for your estimate.

    The last place I worked was in an office park with no sidewalks and walkers had to cross and enter a 4 lane road to go to the next building. Yes I would have driven it. We all did. Walkable distance but much safer to do it in a car.
  • staticsplit
    staticsplit Posts: 538 Member
    I ran a half-marathon last week and burned 2100 in exercise calories that day. MFP sets my default to 1750, but with exercise calories it told me to eat 3,800. If I'd only eaten 1700odd, I would have been very cranky! That's an extreme example, but if I've had an exercise heavy day, I'm hungry. I'm going to nourish myself.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    Who's marking all the "eating these calories and still losing weight" answers woo?
  • ryenday
    ryenday Posts: 1,540 Member
    edited September 2017
    shaunshaikh wrote: »
    ryendey,

    I think you're just obscuring the important take away from the question of "what is the point of eating back your exercise calories".

    It is important for people to understand that MFP sets your daily calorie goal based on your desired lbs/week loss and activity level, without considering purposeful exercise. When you do purposeful exercise, you increase the amount of calories you burn. Therefore, to MAINTAIN your DESIRED lbs/week loss you would want to eat those calories back.

    What you're digging at are two completely separate issues:
    1. How to handle issues that arise from poor estimation of calories burned. Some people, from experience, only eat back half of the calories from certain sources, because those sources overestimate calories burned. However, in the end, you're still eating back all your calories earned, you're just FIXING THE ESTIMATION. I personally eat every single calorie I earn through exercise, and I hit my desird lbs/week target to the 0.1 pound per week.

    2. What is a "healthy" or "sustainable" weight loss rate for people of different body sizes and targets? THIS is very personal. You may set your goal at half a pound a week, and through exercise and not eating back your exercise calories you actually increase your deficit to a level that causes you to lose 1-2 pounds per week. Again, this is not a question of whether or not to eat calories back. This is just a question of whether the rate of loss is appropriate for a person at a given weight relative to their ideal weight.

    The bottom line is that Calories In (CI) vs. Calories Out (CO) is all that matters due to the Conservation of Energy. Creating a cumulative calorie deficit over time will cause your body to burn fat (and/or muscle) in order to make up the deficit in energy. Exercise calories are just another form of Calories Out, no different than the calories you burn to pump blood through your body. We all use different methods to calculate CI and CO, and they are all based on estimations. Some people are better at estimating than others. It may take some trial and error and long term trending to see if the results match the expectations.

    Hmm I read the OP as asking 'if one is trying to lose weight, why eat back exercise calories?'. Then I read a bunch of answers saying You MUST eat them back or OMG bad for you! Then I tried to respond by saying it depends, some people (for example those whose calorie allowance is already close to max healthy loss amount and those who exercise is intense or lengthy) SHOULD Eat those calories back BUT that folks who have a less aggressive weekly weight loss might have a choice to eat the calories back or not - either way could be healthy.

    I think that is a moderate and thoughtful take it on the question and answers I have seen here.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    edited September 2017
    We all have a choice whether to eat then back or not. And we all have different priorities to guide us.

    If you're morbidly obese, you might be trying to lose weight as fast as possible for valid health reasons.

    You might be trying to lose weight for a specific event like a wedding or reunion or a competition, although even in those cases you'll probably be more successful if you don't try to make it a race.

    Personally, I'm set to lose 1/4 pound per week, which is about what's happening. I want to shrink my belly a little. I want to preserve all the muscle I have, I worked hard for it, it looks good on me, my girlfriend likes it. I'm at a healthy weight now, I don't need to lose more, this is for vanity and performance on the bike and skiing uphill.

    I don't think anybody wants to lose muscle though.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,454 Member
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    Who's marking all the "eating these calories and still losing weight" answers woo?

    :lol: I always assume a "woo" on one of my posts means, "You are awesome." (Even though I'm sure that's not *always* the case) I think people think it's "woohoo, go you - riding 120 miles!"

    That word, I don't think it means what you think it means...
  • ryenday
    ryenday Posts: 1,540 Member
    MegaMooseEsq wrote: »
    ryenday wrote: »
    I’m another one with a very unpopular MFP opinion. I think it really depends on the circumstances of the individual.

    Example 1. Sedentary Male, reasonably tall 25 years old, let’s say MFP gives him 2250 calories to maintain and 1250 calories to lose 2 pounds a week.

    Example 2. Sedentary Female, short and over 50. Let’s say MFP gives her 1500 calories to maintain, but since MFP does not recommend eating below 1200 calories (because that is the minimum level necessary to get necessary nutrients is my understanding why) she gets 1250 to lose .5 pounds a week.

    Both people want to lose as much weight as they can - SAFELY so they both plan to eat at 1250 calories a day.
    However, they then both decide they will start exercising and start doing cardio for 30 minutes each day.

    If our fellow did not eat back his exercise and stayed at 1250 he would now be tracking to lose more than 2 lb a week - an unsafe rate of weight loss. To stay at a healthy rate if weight loss Example 1 should be eating those exercise calories back!

    Our gal, is a different story. 1250 calories is only .5 pound of weight loss a month for her. She can choose her path. Eat the exercise calories back ( because let’s face it, 1250 calories a day isn’t most peoples idea of fun) OR she could choose to continue eating at 1250 and lose weight faster - now at a rate of almost .8 pounds a week (because let’s face it, .5 pounds a week doesn’t even feel like weight loss to many people, they might not even see a difference for months)

    Now, if our gal started doing a long endurance type workout (ran a 1/2 marathon, biked 30 miles) and not just a 30 minute minimum recommended cardio - she would almost certainly need to eat back exercise calories to keep herself fueled for that, even if her overall calories were still under the safe 2 pounds a week loss.

    So eat back your exercise calories or not? If one doesn’t eat back the exercise calories are they still losing weight at a safe 2 lb or less a week? If yes, than I’d say it is the individual’s choice - neither is ‘better’ for all in this circumstance. Is the person doing any extreme activities (High intensity or endurance exercise)? If yes, the individual must consider both weight loss rate and fueling for their activities in their healthy weight loss decision.

    Again, this is a pretty unpopular opinion on MFP. And there are way more individual factors that should play into this decision than we could go into here. Bottom line to me, the individual should do what feels right to them within the general healthy frameworks. And the individual needs to understand that’s everything MFP gives them numbers wise are ESTIMATES based upon AVERAGE persons. Adjustments for individual needs and preferences and results will more than likely be necessary.

    Correct me if I'm missing something, but your entire "unpopular opinion" appears to boil down to "people who are only getting modest amounts of exercise don't really need to worry about eating back exercise calories", coupled with "small and sedentary older women can probably safely net a bit below 1200 calories a day." Those don't actually seem like especially unpopular or controversial opinions, so I'm curious why you framed it as some sort of truth bomb.

    I labeled my opinion as unpopular because I seldom see it put forward and when I do I generally see it ignored or actively disagreed with.

    My opinion is that depending upon the the personal circumstances, including how great a weight loss your calories are set to give you, it may in fact be just fine health wise to decide to not eat back exercise calories. Some people, for example persons who already have a 2 lb weight loss estimate aged from calories alone (and those who exercise intensely or lengthy) pro ably SHOULD eat back their exercise calories. Others, especially those whose calorie restriction is set to a low amount of lb loss per week, probably have latitude within a healthy range to choose for themselves.

    Popular/unpopular whatever. I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

    OP I wish you good luck and health!
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    Ericnutrition wrote: »
    soon2beeskinny wrote: »
    I'm not understanding the purpose of eating back your exercise calories. It defeats the purpose of exercising if you are using it to burn more calories. If you eat them back you don't burn more calories. Your're in the same place you were before you started. Am I missing something here?

    I don't get it either. You ate dinner, and you did not exceed your goal of let's say 1,400 calories.

    Later you go to the gym, work really hard, and burn 500 calories, so you are net 500 calories. You get home at 9:30 PM, and now you have to chow down on 500 calories, even if you are not particularly hungry?

    Very strange indeed. Believe me, nothing bad is going to happen to you if you don't eat anymore.

    MFP will give me a calorie target of 1900 calories to lose about 1 Lb per week without any exercise...I burn over 1,000 calories on a 30 mile bike ride...so my net calorie intake would be about 900 calories...and that sounds healthy to you?

    Plenty bad would happen if I didn't account for that activity on a regular basis...
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    Ericnutrition wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Ericnutrition wrote: »
    FYI - Those calorie counters on exercise machines are notoriously inaccurate on the high side, for obvious reasons.

    Yes, which is why you will see virtually everyone in these threads stress the importance of estimating exercise calories accurately and using their real life results to make adjustments.

    All of this.

    Everyone has explained many of these points before, about how to best utilize the MFP approach to accurately tracking and logging calories in and calories out to achieve their individual goals. Time and again, eric has suggested that things are so difficult and daunting that new users will be turned off and ultimately unsuccessful, and ignoring the fact that so many of us have achieved our goals using this very tool and find it to be completely manageable and helpful.

    I am convinced that eric is soon going to reveal his own site or method for weight loss that he believes is far superior to MFP. That's the only end game I can envision here that makes sense - why someone would continue to ignore the comments of people successfully using this site and trying to downplay the positive results that so many have had.

    How many people do you personally know that have tracked and log calories for the long term? If it were so easy, we would all be thin.

    There are actually quite a few such people on this site...
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,454 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    Ericnutrition wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Ericnutrition wrote: »
    FYI - Those calorie counters on exercise machines are notoriously inaccurate on the high side, for obvious reasons.

    Yes, which is why you will see virtually everyone in these threads stress the importance of estimating exercise calories accurately and using their real life results to make adjustments.

    All of this.

    Everyone has explained many of these points before, about how to best utilize the MFP approach to accurately tracking and logging calories in and calories out to achieve their individual goals. Time and again, eric has suggested that things are so difficult and daunting that new users will be turned off and ultimately unsuccessful, and ignoring the fact that so many of us have achieved our goals using this very tool and find it to be completely manageable and helpful.

    I am convinced that eric is soon going to reveal his own site or method for weight loss that he believes is far superior to MFP. That's the only end game I can envision here that makes sense - why someone would continue to ignore the comments of people successfully using this site and trying to downplay the positive results that so many have had.

    How many people do you personally know that have tracked and log calories for the long term? If it were so easy, we would all be thin.

    There are actually quite a few such people on this site...

    I'm about to go into my eleventh year logging food on this site. Not every day for that whole eleven years, but I'd say at least half of that, and for the past two years I've logged everything.

  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    edited September 2017
    Ericnutrition wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    Ericnutrition wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Ericnutrition wrote: »
    FYI - Those calorie counters on exercise machines are notoriously inaccurate on the high side, for obvious reasons.

    Yes, which is why you will see virtually everyone in these threads stress the importance of estimating exercise calories accurately and using their real life results to make adjustments.

    All of this.

    Everyone has explained many of these points before, about how to best utilize the MFP approach to accurately tracking and logging calories in and calories out to achieve their individual goals. Time and again, eric has suggested that things are so difficult and daunting that new users will be turned off and ultimately unsuccessful, and ignoring the fact that so many of us have achieved our goals using this very tool and find it to be completely manageable and helpful.

    I am convinced that eric is soon going to reveal his own site or method for weight loss that he believes is far superior to MFP. That's the only end game I can envision here that makes sense - why someone would continue to ignore the comments of people successfully using this site and trying to downplay the positive results that so many have had.

    How many people do you personally know that have tracked and log calories for the long term? If it were so easy, we would all be thin.

    There are actually quite a few such people on this site...

    I'm about to go into my eleventh year logging food on this site. Not every day for that whole eleven years, but I'd say at least half of that, and for the past two years I've logged everything.

    Based on everything you've learned about appropriate eating through calorie counting, wouldn't it be a lot easier not to log, weigh yourself everyday, and start logging again if you gain a pound or two?

    Chances are you will rarely gain weight because you know what to eat and not eat.

    Not logging does not mean going to Burger King and ordering a triple cheeseburger with a large fries and a large Coke. It means eating what you've been eating.

    I don't know about you, but I personally find it much easier to maintain my weight than it is to lose weight.

    I don't know what you mean by knowing what to eat and what not to eat. Well, I know, but it's not a concept that I would enjoy. I lost weight by counting the calories of things I was eating anyway, I just hit my specific calorie goal. Sometimes that included french fries or a soda so the category of "what not to eat" wasn't part of my weight loss and it isn't part of my life now.

    Some people do lose weight and maintain successfully by having a category of "foods not to eat" and if it works for them, that's great. But many people, like me, prefer to lose and maintain by just eating a variety of foods and hitting a calorie goal.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,097 Member
    ryenday wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    JRSINAZ wrote: »
    If you want to lose weight slow. Get depressed when you plateau etc then go ahead and have twinkie to eat back all that hard work you did today. I do not. Losing and loving it here.

    That's a really interesting theory. Is it real?

    I lost about 75 pounds, and I've kept it off for years now.

    Last night I had a heaping plate of tacos for dinner. About 1,200 delicious calories worth. It was a yummy protein bomb.

    Also yesterday I biked 27 hilly miles in 2 hours. And walked 14k steps over the course of the day. A walk to get coffee, a walk at lunch.

    In the last week I've done 120 bike miles. Just got some new wheels, having a lot of fun riding them. New toys are the best motivators.

    So I can't agree that eating your exercise calories makes you a fat and depressed loser. It just means you understand math.

    I’m curious, how many hours a week does that total? Biking and Walks (intentional choice to use walking to get someplace others would likely choose a different form of transportation so count walk from office 2 blocks to coffee shop but don’t count parked a bit farther away in the grocery store parking lot)?

    I could be way off, but I’m guessing that amounts to 20 or 30 hours a week?

    Your body doesn't know whether a particular expenditure of energy is "intentional." All that matters is whether the total expenditure of energy is more than, less than, or the same as the amount of energy you consumed.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories