To Eat or Not To Eat...That is the question.

sprocketism

1. I know that no one should ever consume less than 1200 calories, so no need to contemplate that at all.

2. I also know that exercise calories should be eaten back in order to maintain a minimum of 1200 calories.

Here's my beef:

In my world, exercise is truly dreadful, so technically, I can sit on my butt all day, eat 1200 calories, and I'm cool. It's my understanding that one in my position (5'3" 130 Lbs, female, 35, goal weight 115), according to a trainer I had a gazillion years ago, should eat 1200 calories, burn 200 of it through exercise, and call it a day. It is also suggested in our food diaries things like, "If every day is like this, you will weigh X pounds in 5 weeks", in which the numbers look way better when you don't eat back the exercise calories.

If it is such, that you should always eat your exercise calories, then why wouldn't MFP just say something like, "You must consume your exercise calories in order to be successful" after clicking the button. It's terribly misleading and totally confusing on which advice to follow! You get me???!!! My concern is wasting anymore time. I've been at this dieting nonsense for the last 3 months (started MFP 7 days ago) , to 0 results. I'm tired of living in sweats! I have confidence in MFP, but I'm not into obsessing on calorie counting super long term. I'd like to reach my goal soon (3 months-ish), and then maintain.

Someone, please be real. Please feel free to see my diary also. My food choices are healthy.
TTYS

snazzyjazzy21

If you don't consume enough, MFP SHOULD tell you. I've never had this but apparently it will tell you you're not eating enough? If you're not losing, I'd take a look first at your food. Are you weighing everything you eat? What is your goal loss for the week? And are you eating back 100% of your exercise calories? For a lot of people MFP overestimates their calories burned through exercise so it might pay to take a cut (70-80%) and just eat those back, to allow for inaccuracies.

newfoundpunk182

It does tell you that. If you are slated to consume 1200 calories per day and you've eaten 800 so far, you have 400 left. Then lets say you hit the gym and burn 200 calories. Go back and look at your remaining calories for the day. All your markers (fat, carbs, fiber, protein...whatever macronutrients or information you choose to display) as well as caloric balance have all been updated to compensate for that 200 calorie gym deficit. So now your projected calorie consumption for the day is 1400 calories and you have 600 left to eat. If you hit "finished" for the day after eating the 400 calories you originally had left over rather than your new amount of 600, it tells you you're eating too little.

beautifulbelly

nevermind

sprocketism

I totally understand what MFP is saying, in small print of course. If anything is super motivating, it's the huge loss I could "potentially" have by NOT eating back those calories. What I'm getting at is if not eating back exercise calories is not going to work for you, then why would MFP give you a forecast? In reality, all it should say is, "You ate X, you exercised Y, and you must make up for it." Not give us hopefuls a false weight loss forecast. The only time it should give a forecast is if you are falling within the proper Net Calorie range, right?

See what I mean?

snazzyjazzy21

I totally understand what MFP is saying, in small print of course. If anything is super motivating, it's the huge loss I could "potentially" have by NOT eating back those calories. What I'm getting at is if not eating back exercise calories is not going to work for you, then why would MFP give you a forecast? In reality, all it should say is, "You ate X, you exercised Y, and you must make up for it." Not give us hopefuls a false weight loss forecast. The only time it should give a forecast is if you are falling within the proper Net Calorie range, right?

See what I mean?

I do, but not everyone uses MFP the same way. Some people get their 500 deficit by eating 250 cals less and then exercising 250cals, they don't want to be told they have to eat those back, it's counter productive for them. MFP is set up that way so it allows people to tailor it to their preferred style of weight loss/gain.

sprocketism

That actually makes more sense. I didn't think to see it that way. I've been staying within 200 calories using that also, but I would love to have lost "9 LBS in the next 5 weeks" as opposed to "4 LBS in the next 5 weeks".

suslendengu

Exercise does more than just burn calories, It boosts our metabolism, increases our circulation, makes our bodies more efficient in nutrient optimalisation. In short better health. We can do nothing more than brisk walking (regularly) to help us in this regard. That would account for your trainers reasoning. Taking weight off too quickly, by not eating enough calories and exercising makes our bodies go into famine mode. This means our metabolism hangs onto the incoming calories instead of burning them. This is an oversimplification, but it illustrates what takes place. So it is important to maintain the right balance of eating/burning.

sprocketism

But say that I eat 1200 calories today, then burn 200 on the treadmill, then that's it for the day. What will be my results??

snazzyjazzy21

But say that I eat 1200 calories today, then burn 200 on the treadmill, then that's it for the day. What will be my results??

You will lose weight, but if you don't eat back your exercise calories it may be damaging in the long run. Your body does need a certain number of calories to continue basic functions and if you don't give it enough energy to work with, it may slow down or even stop some of these, or turn to other sources of energy (like muscle). I'd advice eating back your calories from exercise, or at least a good % of them. It's better to lose weight slowly and know you're not doing any harm to your body, than to lose it quickly and end up with health problems because of it.

bunbunzee44

you may end up slowing your metabolism if you don't eat enough. I'm 5'3'' and I lost weight quickly following the 1200 (and eating exercise calories back), but I still lost weight quickly once I upped my cals (slowly if you've been doing it for a while) AND it deffinitely boosted my metabolism up again . at 1500 I'd still be losing. Already hit my goal weight so I'm eating more now.

bridgie101

1. I know that no one should ever consume less than 1200 calories, so no need to contemplate that at all.

2. I also know that exercise calories should be eaten back in order to maintain a minimum of 1200 calories.

Here's my beef:

In my world, exercise is truly dreadful, so technically, I can sit on my butt all day, eat 1200 calories, and I'm cool. It's my understanding that one in my position (5'3" 130 Lbs, female, 35, goal weight 115), according to a trainer I had a gazillion years ago, should eat 1200 calories, burn 200 of it through exercise, and call it a day. It is also suggested in our food diaries things like, "If every day is like this, you will weigh X pounds in 5 weeks", in which the numbers look way better when you don't eat back the exercise calories.

If it is such, that you should always eat your exercise calories, then why wouldn't MFP just say something like, "You must consume your exercise calories in order to be successful" after clicking the button. It's terribly misleading and totally confusing on which advice to follow! You get me???!!! My concern is wasting anymore time. I've been at this dieting nonsense for the last 3 months (started MFP 7 days ago) , to 0 results. I'm tired of living in sweats! I have confidence in MFP, but I'm not into obsessing on calorie counting super long term. I'd like to reach my goal soon (3 months-ish), and then maintain.

Someone, please be real. Please feel free to see my diary also. My food choices are healthy.
TTYS

The number of 1200 cals a day, is to ensure you get nutrients in the door. That's basically the reason. people bang on about losing muscle and going under bmr's but I suspect that's a pile of hogwash.

So if you eat those 1200 cals you've got the nutrients in the door. You use 200 cals exercising - you still got the vitamins in the door didn't you? So eating those cals back may not be necessary for you. People eat those cals back because they get hungry, as far as I can see.

You're teeny weeny. I can't imagine you need quite as many nutrients as someone who's 5'8". Maybe there is a more sophisticated website out there capable of taking into consideration your height before calculating your base calorie requirement for a day.

And ignore the people who talk about slowing your metabolism. You can't slow a metabolism. Can you slow the speed at which blood is pumped around your body? Can you make your lungs breathe air for fewer calories a puff? I suspect it's dietese for 'lose muscle tone' but if you go for walks and so on your body will keep your muscle.

chani8

There are many benefits to exercising, including being able to eat those calories, but you don't need to exercise to lose weight.

Kabiti

Personally, I find exercise to be damaging to my weight loss. I try to walk, but anything more strenuous and I get so hungry I binge. Now that I've lost a lot I'm trying to incorporate more.

And I don't believe in the "losing it too quickly" line. Losing it too quickly is really saying "you're not learning from the process" so that when you stop, you'll go back to what you were eating and doing before you started. Well... I'll be keeping my scale and my diet is very sustainable (thanks to a new found love of salads - which I usually eat with 4-6 oz chicken or beef).

I'm not a doctor, but I see one... and my GP is ecstatic that the weight is coming off and my diabetes is going away (A1C went from 7.5 to 6.9 after 2 weeks of dieting... at the next appointment I'm hoping for absolutely stellar results).

stackhead

The number of 1200 cals a day, is to ensure you get nutrients in the door. That's basically the reason. people bang on about losing muscle and going under bmr's but I suspect that's a pile of hogwash.

So if you eat those 1200 cals you've got the nutrients in the door. You use 200 cals exercising - you still got the vitamins in the door didn't you? So eating those cals back may not be necessary for you. People eat those cals back because they get hungry, as far as I can see.

You're teeny weeny. I can't imagine you need quite as many nutrients as someone who's 5'8". Maybe there is a more sophisticated website out there capable of taking into consideration your height before calculating your base calorie requirement for a day.

And ignore the people who talk about slowing your metabolism. You can't slow a metabolism. Can you slow the speed at which blood is pumped around your body? Can you make your lungs breathe air for fewer calories a puff? I suspect it's dietese for 'lose muscle tone' but if you go for walks and so on your body will keep your muscle.

Good for you "suspecting" hogwash. If you eat 1200 calories and exercise 200 calories off you will need more nutrients than you did just eating 1200 calories to replace the ones lost when exercising and to help repair the body following exercise.

You can slow a metabolism, you just won't notice any effects until you're properly ill from being malnourished because the body will focus on preserving the vitals.

Height is factored into practically every calculator out there, because it matters. Its calculated into the MFP formula except that most people negate it because they choose to lose 2lb a week with very little to lose.

I suspect you are talking hogwash my good sir, not only that but poppycock too.

ndj1979

But say that I eat 1200 calories today, then burn 200 on the treadmill, then that's it for the day. What will be my results??

you will net 1000 calories...

is there a point to this thread?