Is it all about the net? Can I walk so that I can eat?

blackcows15

I don't have time nor the desire for a complex diet and I am too cheap to use a diet service such as Weigh Watchers or Nutrisystems. I do like goals, numbers, and technology so MFP seems to be a great fit for me. Is it fair to say that in order to loose weight it's all about net calories...no more or less complicated than that? Is it a crazy thought process to think that I will walk in the morning, eat a low calorie breakfast and lunch so that I have "saved" calories for the evening that I can "spend" on a couple beers and pizza and still be at or below my goal for the day. I was going to start walking on the treadmill 15 minutes a day but using MFP I saw that 30 minutes would allow me several more calories for the day so now I am walking 30 minutes so I can bank more calories...is that ok? In other words does it make sense to walk more to eat more?

neandermagnon

as long as your calorie goal is set to the right level so you're eating less than you burn off, you'll lose weight. Pay attention to all the nutrients your body needs (protein, carbs, fat, vitamins, minerals, fibre, water), yes definitely exercise so you can eat more as that's really healthy, and yes fit what you really want into your calorie goal. Beer and pizza is quite hard to fit in as they're calorie dense but as long as you're getting enough protein, vitamins etc while doing that, and staying under your calorie goal (including eating back exercise calories, so you can exercise to get more calories to eat), you should be able to eat them and still lose weight.

Keeping it simple and easy to follow is a great strategy, because what you want to aim for is long term maintenance of your goal weight, if how you get there is too difficult to stick to in the long term, then you're going to end up gaining the weight back sooner or later.

DianneP6772

I think so! No magic - calories in, calories out. I have only been here a little over three months, but have read a lot of the posts and most agree - thats what its all about. I cycle and am out there thinking - "I can have a Zone bar when i get back!" More miles - more treats! Keep walking!

55in13

Yes but be aware that mfp tends to overestimate exercise calories. Check other calculators also.

ghostrider1970

IMHO, is a really bad idea. People tend to greatly overestimate how much they burn, so you'll end up eating more than you need. Don't use exercising as an excuse to eat more... it's a surefire recipe for disaster, just my 2 cents

Scienceteacher42

Yes, it is that simple as long as you are honest about the amount of beer and pizza you are consuming and don't go over your caloric intake for the day. Make the pizza thin instead of thick and you will save about 20% on calories. I am sure the same it true about choosing your beer. If you find you still aren't losing the weight fast enough, have one less slice of pizza. Eat a salad before you start eating the pizza, so you fill up more quickly.

I haven't stopped eating anything since using MFP, but I have stopped eating a lot of things as much or as often.

I too am not willing to spend the money on something like Weight Watchers, and have been using MFP since the end of May. I even got my husband to start using it because he had lost a lot of weight and then hit a plateau. He thought he would HATE having to track everything he ate, but after a couple of days he found how easy it was to stay under goal and he started losing the weight! Now he loves it too.

Beertrishdadish

Scientists have agreed for years that a calorie = a calorie, no matter its source. BUT, in recent years, most scientists have come to realize that, whle the energy potentials of calories ARE equivalent (by definition, a calorie = the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1 degree Celsius), the work that our bodies go through as far as processing different foods isn't! For whole-grain/ multi-grain/ more fibrous bread (a.k.a. "complex carbohydrates"), for example, when compared to white bread, a human's body must expend more energy (and remember that energy = calories) while trying to metabolize (break down) the whole grain bread in order for the body to be able to use it as energy. In other words, "complex" carbohydrates can't be used immediately as energy by our bodies...so we spend energy to break those down first. Energy that is not spent breaking down "simple" carbs (like table sugar, because our body can use "simple" carbs as-is for its energy needs. So while we go to the gym and log hours walking, if we eat a diet with lots of super foods and complex carbs, then although we don't realize this, our guts are churning away and also logging additional calorie burns for us breaking down all of that stuff, internally! Also, due to the fact that this break-down process does take some time, these foods stay in our guts longer, and so while it's sitting in there there waiting to be broken down, it of course makes us feel fuller (satisfied) for longer, and so we don't get hungry as quickly, and so we don't eat as much additional food in order to feel full, and so we don't eat as many additional calories as often, and so our bodies don't get as fat as quickly! So....all calorie counts ARE equivalent, but not all foods are equivalent, especially for those of us who want to drop weight and develop lifetime food habits that will help us keep it off. No, I am not a scientist...also, I just joined this last night, and saw your question, and decided to try to help. This is my very first post!

But -- with all of that said, the person who counts calories in and calories out and keeps a calorie deficit going WILL lose the weight, but not as fast as the person who consumes the exact same number of calories contained in more "complex" foods.

Contrarian

I don't have time nor the desire for a complex diet and I am too cheap to use a diet service such as Weigh Watchers or Nutrisystems. I do like goals, numbers, and technology so MFP seems to be a great fit for me. Is it fair to say that in order to loose weight it's all about net calories...no more or less complicated than that? Is it a crazy thought process to think that I will walk in the morning, eat a low calorie breakfast and lunch so that I have "saved" calories for the evening that I can "spend" on a couple beers and pizza and still be at or below my goal for the day. I was going to start walking on the treadmill 15 minutes a day but using MFP I saw that 30 minutes would allow me several more calories for the day so now I am walking 30 minutes so I can bank more calories...is that ok? In other words does it make sense to walk more to eat more?

You have it exactly right. As others have said, however, be sure to not over-estimate your calorie burns. This site is set up to give you a calorie deficit before exercise, so you are supposed to eat back exercise calories.

257_Lag

It sure is that easy. I will admit that more often than not I work out JUST to get the extra calories. Sure in the future there are lots of things to improve upon but you have to start somewhere.

neandermagnon

IMHO, is a really bad idea. People tend to greatly overestimate how much they burn, so you'll end up eating more than you need. Don't use exercising as an excuse to eat more... it's a surefire recipe for disaster, just my 2 cents

seeing as throughout human evolution, exercise was to acquire food (you can't hunt and gather food without walking, running and killing an animal or two) - I can't see what's remotely wrong with the idea of exercising so you can eat more. It's what our ancestors have done for millions of years. Also, exercising more and eating more to support doing more exercise is the way to build a strong, healthy body, probably because that's what enabled our ancestors to survive. I think that being able to eat more is an excellent way for people to be motivated to do more exercise and get all the health benefits of exercise.

Yes, some people overestimate calorie burns, but you can double check calorie burns (there are lots of online calculators and cardio machines often have a built in calorie calculator) or get a heart rate monitor, and you can also observe your results and adjust as necessary; if you're not losing weight and the most likely reason is overestimated calorie burns, you could try eating back only 80% of exercise calories and seeing if that fixes it.

MFP is set up with a built in deficit, so if you're using the default settings of MFP, you should be eating back exercise calories. If you don't trust MFPs calorie burn estimates, find other ways to estimate it, or switch to the TDEE - 10-20% method, which has the calorie burns from exercise already built in to your calorie goal so you don't have to mess about with calculating exercise calories.

toutmonpossible

In my view, that's a bad strategy and mindset. It is common to overestimate the number of calories one has burned. People exercise, they feel entitled to eat more (and physiologically, they may have cravings), they eat too much and end up undermining themselves.

If I were you, I would not exercise to eat. I would eat healthily and at an appropriate deficit, exercise as much as my time and physical condition permitted, track my weight, and eat a little more if I was hungry and could afford it. Exercise is good for you in general, but it is not believed to be that significant in weight loss. There is some evidence that it is important in weight maintenance.

likitisplit

Yep. It worked for me.

toutmonpossible

IMHO, is a really bad idea. People tend to greatly overestimate how much they burn, so you'll end up eating more than you need. Don't use exercising as an excuse to eat more... it's a surefire recipe for disaster, just my 2 cents

seeing as throughout human evolution, exercise was to acquire food (you can't hunt and gather food without walking, running and killing an animal or two) - I can't see what's remotely wrong with the idea of exercising so you can eat more.

Our ancestors were constantly active to survive, to procure nutrition, the availability of which was uncertain and sometimes dangerous to obtain. They didn't "exercise to eat more."

Zaniejane

Yes. I am my goal weight now because I kept it simple. I ate back about 50% of the calories mfp said I burned.

Kyledrums

It's what I was doing to start with. If I knew I was going out and wanted to have a few beers I'd make sure I had a nice long walk in the afternoon. Now I've been trying to look after my body for a while, I've ended up walking for the joy of it and cutting down on the beer anyway.
If that's your motivation for now good on you. Once you start you'll get hooked.

PeauxPeaux

True Statement: I go to the gym to eat.

Well okay, I also really like the endorphins.

True-er statement: I go to the gym to get high on endorphins and so that I can eat dark chocolate and have red wine at the end of the day. I don't see any other reasons to do it. *

The best way not to overestimate your exercise calories is with a heartrate monitor, or if you are walking as exercise, try a little fitbit

*This statement only applies to going to the gym. I also do yoga which de-stresses me SO much it genuinely makes me a kinder more patient nice person. I do it for the sheer pleasure of it. And I also fit in FUN stuff as often as I can---Stand Up Paddle Boarding is SUPER fun and a big burn, swimming, hiking with friends is fun. But yeah, if I go to the gym, it's to burn off some calories so I can eat more, and to get that high.

neandermagnon

IMHO, is a really bad idea. People tend to greatly overestimate how much they burn, so you'll end up eating more than you need. Don't use exercising as an excuse to eat more... it's a surefire recipe for disaster, just my 2 cents

seeing as throughout human evolution, exercise was to acquire food (you can't hunt and gather food without walking, running and killing an animal or two) - I can't see what's remotely wrong with the idea of exercising so you can eat more.

Our ancestors were constantly active to survive, to procure nutrition, the availability of which was uncertain and sometimes dangerous to obtain. They didn't "exercise to eat more."

they might not have thought "I'm going to exercise so I can eat more" they would have thought, "I'm hungry, I need to get food" - the resulting behaviour, physically exerting themselves in order to be able to eat more, is the same. Exerting yourself more, resulting in obtaining more food. The psychological process that leads to it doesn't change the physiological reality of what was happening in terms of their behaviour and their bodies.

Also, hunter-gatherers were/are not constantly active. Modern hunter-gatherers spend about 20 hours a week hunting and gathering. The rest of the time they're lazing around socialising. They stay thin because exercise = food aquisition. Unlike industrial people who can acquire food without exercising. So the mentality of doing exercise to earn more calories to eat is really not so different to needing to exert yourself to acquire food.

ghostrider1970

seeing as throughout human evolution, exercise was to acquire food (you can't hunt and gather food without walking, running and killing an animal or two) - I can't see what's remotely wrong with the idea of exercising so you can eat more. It's what our ancestors have done for millions of years. Also, exercising more and eating more to support doing more exercise is the way to build a strong, healthy body, probably because that's what enabled our ancestors to survive. I think that being able to eat more is an excellent way for people to be motivated to do more exercise and get all the health benefits of exercise.

You're kidding me right? Tell me how the hell can you compare someone who has to run to catch his dinner, who would probably put up a fight to avoid becoming dinner, to the average joe who lazily walk on a treadmill, to cheat himself into beleiving that the double glazed, triple chocolate cream filled donut he's going to eat afterward is already burned... come on!
IMO, if someone talks about training to eat more, have already the wrong mindset, and it will, in a couple of months, starts a thread asking why is gaining weight instead of losing it... "but I train so hard".
Again, just my 2 cent.

laserturkey

IMHO, is a really bad idea. People tend to greatly overestimate how much they burn, so you'll end up eating more than you need. Don't use exercising as an excuse to eat more... it's a surefire recipe for disaster, just my 2 cents

As long as you are careful to record reasonable numbers for your calorie burns and your food log is accurate, you can eat back ALL of your exercise calories and lose weight. MFP's database tends to read very high on some exercises, though. I used a HRM and discovered that their numbers for walking come out just about right, but that I need to record only 50-60% of my TKD class calories to have it match what the HRM said. Do your homework on your exercise burns, and you can work out more to eat more.

blackcows15

So to be fair I am not really exercising so I can eat more, it would probably be more accurate to say I am exercising so I can eat similar and loose some weight. I am 46 years old and weigh about 230. I wouldn't consider myself fat (whatever that subjective term means) but I would like to loose about 30 pounds from my belly and chest so that my cloths fit better.

I have never been on a diet or made an effort to eat well. I work in a home office and out of habit have spent all day snacking for the last 15 years. Probably not because I was hungry but because it was something to keep me busy. I have quit drinking soda (drank about 12 cans a week) and have been using MFP for the last week to help me better understand what I am eating. I have been doing a great job of drinking more water and have eliminated 85% of my snacking during the day and at night before bed. My goal is to walk 30 minutes a day on the treadmill at least 4 days a week. We like to grill during the summer and eat out during the winter. I am hoping that by using the plan above I can still enjoy potatoes, french fries, the occasional cheese cake, a hamburger loaded with blue cheese, etc and still loose some weight. Does that seem reasonable?

neandermagnon

seeing as throughout human evolution, exercise was to acquire food (you can't hunt and gather food without walking, running and killing an animal or two) - I can't see what's remotely wrong with the idea of exercising so you can eat more. It's what our ancestors have done for millions of years. Also, exercising more and eating more to support doing more exercise is the way to build a strong, healthy body, probably because that's what enabled our ancestors to survive. I think that being able to eat more is an excellent way for people to be motivated to do more exercise and get all the health benefits of exercise.

You're kidding me right? Tell me how the hell can you compare someone who has to run to catch his dinner, who would probably put up a fight to avoid becoming dinner, to the average joe who lazily walk on a treadmill, to cheat himself into beleiving that the double glazed, triple chocolate cream filled donut he's going to eat afterward is already burned... come on!

Middle and upper palaeolithic humans were top predators that were not in danger of becoming some other animal's lunch, unless they did something stupid like wandering off into deep, dark woods all by themselves like snow white, which they would have had enough sense not to do.

Lower palaeolithic humans were no more likely to end up as someone else's lunch as chimpanzees are... in fact a lot less likely as Homo sapiens hadn't evolved yet to poach them using firearms the way chimps are poached by humans nowadays.

Exercise = food aquisition. Exercise = food aquisition in the palaeolithic era, and using exercise = earning more calories to eat more nowadays is really not very different at all. It's how our bodies evolved to work... exercise, and then eat.

And saying that and using it as motivation to eat more is not the same as "kidding yourself that you already burned off some triple chocolate donut etc etc etc" nonsense.... I've already stated that you have to be honest and accurate when calculating calories, of course you have to calculate them accurately. There is absolutely nothing wrong with thinking of exercise as a means to acquire more food to eat.... it's very successful for many people, as this thread is showing...

And our palaeolithic ancestors were good enough at aquiring food that they had plenty of leisure time. Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis were capable of catching huge animals like bison and mammoths. You really think they had to catch animals like that every single day?

IMO, if someone talks about training to eat more, have already the wrong mindset, and it will, in a couple of months, starts a thread asking why is gaining weight instead of losing it... "but I train so hard".
Again, just my 2 cent.

Funny that, because the most successful long term maintainers I know are the ones that allow themselves to eat what they like in moderation, and exercise in order to be able to eat more, while those with a mentality of deprivation and self punishment get into cycles of yo-yo dieting.

I'm not disputing the necessity to be honest about calorie calculations, i.e. both calories burned and calories eaten. Of course it's not going to work if you do the maths wrong. However that doesn't mean that people who do the maths right can't make it work, or that it's a "bad mentality" or that it equates to "kidding yourself".... seriously. If you're that bad at maths and measuring things to the point that this method would never work for you, then don't do it. But don't project your inability on the rest of the human population.