500 Calorie Exercise Burn vs. 500 Calorie Meal

HeinekenMan

When I started my diet, I was eating 1,500 calories a day. But I was supposed to be eating 2,050. I was supposed to have a 1,000-calorie deficit. Instead, I had a 1,500-calorie deficit. After six weeks, I felt exhausted. I had no energy unless I slept for 12 hours a day.

I knew something had to change. So I reluctantly increased my food consumption to reach 2,050 calories. Incidentally, I also began to start exercising. It occurred to me that I was burning about 500 calories per day. I was concerned that I was canceling out the 500-calorie increase. I expected to feel lethargic after a few days. But I didn't!

This caused me to do some thinking. I developed a little theory. I knew that those extra 500 calories consisted of about 20 percent fat. And I figured that I burned fat during exercise at a rate higher than 20 percent.

Well, I found a calculator (see below). It calculated that, at 120 beats per minute, my body gets 49 percent of its calories from fat during exercise. So eating 500 more calories and burning them off is better than never eating the calories at all. Because I actually dump more fat than if I didn't eat the calories in the first place, and I also get a boost of protein. Confused? Here's an example.

500 Calorie Meal

200 Calories from Protein
200 Calories from Carbohydrate
100 Calories from Fat

500 Calorie Exercise Burn

250 Calories from fat
200 Calories from Carbohydrate
50 Calories from Protein

Combined Meal and Burn

150 calorie net gain of Protein
0 net gain of Carbohydrate
150 calorie net loss of fat

This is such valuable information. I really wanted to share it. This shows why exercise is so important to weight loss. It also shows why it is better to fuel up and exercise those calories off than to do no exercise and eat less. Now, keep in mind that the percentage of fat loss during exercise probably depends on many things, including how fast your heart rate is and your weight, nutrition and total percentage of body fat. The link here is just going to give us an estimate. Even if it's off, you're still better off eating and burning than not eating and not exercising. It's also worth noting that there might be a point of diminishing returns. For example, if maintenance for you is 3,000 calories and you're eating 5,000 and burning 2,000, you will be losing fat. But you won't be dropping weight.

http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/fat-versus-carbohydrate-utilization-during-exercise-calculator.aspx

workout_ninja

Great info, thanks for that :happy:

heybales

Actually, exercise is important to weight loss when you don't watch your intake, like not changing anything, and only add exercise.

When you actually log foot intake, and have a decent estimate of energy burn, you get more from leaving out the food.

So if you had used MFP as designed, deficit given for non-exercise days, eat-back exercise calories when actually done, you'd be getting the best bet.

Because then you get the deficit on all days.

Using exercise as deficit means you only get it on workout days.

Of course, your method right now is take a probably bigger is better approach to deficit, which will usually backfire as that's not true.

In your example, if maintenance is 5000 (3000 non-exercise + 2000 exercise) and you eat 5000, you may burn fat during the exercise, but you'll replace it right back unless doing some great weight lifting to cause body improvements.

But then you'd never be burning that much in exercise either for lifting, nor would it be fat anyway (lifting is anaerobic which means carb burning) so that doesn't apply either.

Besides, that site has to use so many assumptions on that % of fat burn, from your HRmax, to your VO2max, to your aerobic conditioning level, so figure rough to be about 20% accuracy on that.

Very true on the encouragement though to fuel up that exercise you do, and it'll all work better.
Because what usually happens if you don't, you make very minimal improvements from the exercise, and your body just slows your other daily activity down to compensate.
So nothing like you burning 500 in exercise, and your body being underfed so it slows down your other daily activity by 400 calories, only giving you a true net burn of 100 for the day.

HeinekenMan

Actually, exercise is important to weight loss when you don't watch your intake, like not changing anything, and only add exercise.

When you actually log foot intake, and have a decent estimate of energy burn, you get more from leaving out the food.

So if you had used MFP as designed, deficit given for non-exercise days, eat-back exercise calories when actually done, you'd be getting the best bet.

Because then you get the deficit on all days.

Using exercise as deficit means you only get it on workout days.

Of course, your method right now is take a probably bigger is better approach to deficit, which will usually backfire as that's not true.

In your example, if maintenance is 5000 (3000 non-exercise + 2000 exercise) and you eat 5000, you may burn fat during the exercise, but you'll replace it right back unless doing some great weight lifting to cause body improvements.

But then you'd never be burning that much in exercise either for lifting, nor would it be fat anyway (lifting is anaerobic which means carb burning) so that doesn't apply either.

Besides, that site has to use so many assumptions on that % of fat burn, from your HRmax, to your VO2max, to your aerobic conditioning level, so figure rough to be about 20% accuracy on that.

Very true on the encouragement though to fuel up that exercise you do, and it'll all work better.
Because what usually happens if you don't, you make very minimal improvements from the exercise, and your body just slows your other daily activity down to compensate.
So nothing like you burning 500 in exercise, and your body being underfed so it slows down your other daily activity by 400 calories, only giving you a true net burn of 100 for the day.

Are you seriously arguing about whether it's better to have a deficit created by exercise or a deficit created by not eating?

heybales

Are you seriously arguing about whether it's better to have a deficit created by exercise or a deficit created by not eating?

No, just the encouragement as to what works better long term.
It is much easier and better long term to create deficit by diet than by exercise, in the math anyway.

Left to their own devices, people can and usually do eat back their workout calories, or more sometimes. MFP may help in that regard. That's why studies with exercise being the only factor changed show such slow or no weight loss, eating levels go up too.

You yourself are creating a 1000 cal deficit by diet, and then creating 500 more by exercise. Why not eat at non-exercise maintenance and let exercise take care of the rest? We know you can't hit that deficit by exercise only, or it would take too long daily (perhaps) to accomplish.

It has been found for vast majority, adherence to a reasonable diet is easier than adherence to an exercise program that is required for any weight loss. (arguments can be made about MFP helping be reasonable or not)

So that's why MFP went the route difference from almost every other site. Create a diet that has a deficit in it daily no matter what exercise you do if you do any.
On days you actually do exercise, which in reality increases the daily maintenance for that day, you eat more but keep the deficit still.

That way adherence to an exercise program required to create the deficit isn't needed. Obviously better benefit to have one for better lifestyle change, along with better diet.

Of course people have different personal motivations, some are more pushed by getting to eat more, so want to exercise. Some are more pushed by meeting planned goals, so want to hit their workout goals.

That's why I said still good encouragement to fuel the exercise.
Why else do it, just to create a deficit can be more easily obtained by knocking out some foods? No, for body improvements and heart health.

But an unwise deficit, no matter how you get, can backfire, even taking an approach of trying to figure out exactly how much of those exercise calories fat that was perhaps burned, how much of them are great for the extra protein. ect. Just extra complexity that might benefit someone doing specific high-end training, but not trying to lose weight in general.