whats the point of excercise if I eat back the calories?
Options
Replies
-
What I don't get is this: Do you go to Weight Watcher's meetings and tell people not to count points??
:flowerforyou: Peace
*cough cough*
^^ That up there0 -
wut...? :explode: ok, no one is saying that 600 calories of food would suddenly disappear from your body after exercise. We seem to be using 1300 cals so let's be consistent. You eat 1300 calories in a day. You exercise to burn 600. Your body is then left with 700 calories to use to carry out daily functions. And most people need more than that to function properly.
No, that's not how it works at all (esp. if you have a high bodyfat %) - your body feeds off the stored glycogen (or the carbs stored in your muscle & liver) + your bodyfat for energy during exercise
BONUS TIP: if you exercise fasted or first thing in the morning you'll burn MORE FAT and less carbs (glycogen)
:noway: Ok, let me put it another way. My 1 year old is 3 feet tall and weighs 22 lbs. SHE eats more than 700 calories per day. So you're saying thag an adult who exercises off 600 calories should be able to carry out the remainder of their day on LESS than a toddler eats?
Of course not, but you're not eating ONLY 700 cals. - you ate 1300
if your 1 year eats 700 calories and let's say (for sake of arguement) that your toddle burns another 100-to-200 calories exercising or their normal daily activity is She only eating 500 calories per day? of course not.
but look - let's not let me and you get off on the wrong foot here. WE BOTH agree that 1200-to-2000 cals per day is reasonable for MOST people to lose weight.
I think are main struggle here is to figure out where those DAMN exercise calories go - LOL.
but i say (and I know this) they are used mostly for burning extra FAT with the assitance of a calorie restrited diet.
But if you filled up your gas tank with just enough fuel to get to a destination, and drove farther than expected, you would NEED to refuel the car.
You also need to refuel your BODY.
I have yet to meet a doctor who disagreed with this premise. As a matter of fact, I ask ANY doctor that I see about MFP and the calorie counting and eating back the calories and every one of them has said it is perfect! As a matter of fact one of my doctors gives the MFP info to his patients because he wants them to eat ENOUGH.0 -
I usually burn 1500-2200 calories at the gym because when you are 271lbs... Doing 1 hour on the ellipital alone burns ~1000cal.
To burn 1000 calories at that weight in one hour requires an exertion level equivalent to running 6 miles at a 10 min/mile pace. If you don't have the aerobic fitness for a run like that, you almost certainly are burning a lot less on the elliptical than the machine or your HRM says you're burning....recently, I have been dropping inches, but not the weight
That would be consistent with eating back a percentage of over-estimated exercise calories.0 -
wut...? :explode: ok, no one is saying that 600 calories of food would suddenly disappear from your body after exercise. We seem to be using 1300 cals so let's be consistent. You eat 1300 calories in a day. You exercise to burn 600. Your body is then left with 700 calories to use to carry out daily functions. And most people need more than that to function properly.
No, that's not how it works at all (esp. if you have a high bodyfat %) - your body feeds off the stored glycogen (or the carbs stored in your muscle & liver) + your bodyfat for energy during exercise
BONUS TIP: if you exercise fasted or first thing in the morning you'll burn MORE FAT and less carbs (glycogen)
:noway: Ok, let me put it another way. My 1 year old is 3 feet tall and weighs 22 lbs. SHE eats more than 700 calories per day. So you're saying thag an adult who exercises off 600 calories should be able to carry out the remainder of their day on LESS than a toddler eats?
Of course not, but you're not eating ONLY 700 cals. - you ate 1300
if your 1 year eats 700 calories and let's say (for sake of arguement) that your toddle burns another 100-to-200 calories exercising or their normal daily activity is She only eating 500 calories per day? of course not.
but look - let's not let me and you get off on the wrong foot here. WE BOTH agree that 1200-to-2000 cals per day is reasonable for MOST people to lose weight.
I think are main struggle here is to figure out where those DAMN exercise calories go - LOL.
but i say (and I know this) they are used mostly for burning extra FAT with the assitance of a calorie restrited diet.
But if you filled up your gas tank with just enough fuel to get to a destination, and drove farther than expected, you would NEED to refuel the car.
You also need to refuel your BODY.
I have yet to meet a doctor who disagreed with this premise. As a matter of fact, I ask ANY doctor that I see about MFP and the calorie counting and eating back the calories and every one of them has said it is perfect! As a matter of fact one of my doctors gives the MFP info to his patients because he wants them to eat ENOUGH.
Great analogy but your body is way more complex than a car and here's why...
the car does not have a HUGE ENERGY Reserve like our bodies do.
You see, all the excess energy (calories) we eat get stored as fat. You can't put too much gas in a car without it spilling out. Your body takes the excess and it turns it into FAT (a backup energy source) so when you exercise or eat less your body burns the stored fat for energy = weight loss.
but let's go back to the car analogy to someone who is under 5,4 or 3% bodyfat - then we may have a more accurate analogy.0 -
I have a heart rate monitor that states ~1000... The elliptial machine states around 875-910 depends on the resistance. Then, MFP runs about 1,150... so i will just average it at ~1000.
My heart rate stays above 155 to 172 at most times during this exercise.
How can I have 3 things telling me something to an average of ~1000 and yet still have the calories really be under.
So, I am 271 29 years of age. I have a body fat of 32.2%. I am 5'9.
MFP: 1106 Calories/per hour
HRM: 1012 Calories/per hour
Machine: ~945 calories per hour.
So what exactly am I burning if all three have all around the same idea calorie burn for my stature?0 -
wut...? :explode: ok, no one is saying that 600 calories of food would suddenly disappear from your body after exercise. We seem to be using 1300 cals so let's be consistent. You eat 1300 calories in a day. You exercise to burn 600. Your body is then left with 700 calories to use to carry out daily functions. And most people need more than that to function properly.
No, that's not how it works at all (esp. if you have a high bodyfat %) - your body feeds off the stored glycogen (or the carbs stored in your muscle & liver) + your bodyfat for energy during exercise
BONUS TIP: if you exercise fasted or first thing in the morning you'll burn MORE FAT and less carbs (glycogen)
:noway: Ok, let me put it another way. My 1 year old is 3 feet tall and weighs 22 lbs. SHE eats more than 700 calories per day. So you're saying thag an adult who exercises off 600 calories should be able to carry out the remainder of their day on LESS than a toddler eats?
Of course not, but you're not eating ONLY 700 cals. - you ate 1300
if your 1 year eats 700 calories and let's say (for sake of arguement) that your toddle burns another 100-to-200 calories exercising or their normal daily activity is She only eating 500 calories per day? of course not.
but look - let's not let me and you get off on the wrong foot here. WE BOTH agree that 1200-to-2000 cals per day is reasonable for MOST people to lose weight.
I think are main struggle here is to figure out where those DAMN exercise calories go - LOL.
but i say (and I know this) they are used mostly for burning extra FAT with the assitance of a calorie restrited diet.
But if you filled up your gas tank with just enough fuel to get to a destination, and drove farther than expected, you would NEED to refuel the car.
You also need to refuel your BODY.
I have yet to meet a doctor who disagreed with this premise. As a matter of fact, I ask ANY doctor that I see about MFP and the calorie counting and eating back the calories and every one of them has said it is perfect! As a matter of fact one of my doctors gives the MFP info to his patients because he wants them to eat ENOUGH.
Great analogy but your body is way more complex than a car and here's why...
the car does not have a HUGE ENERGY Reserve like our bodies do.
You see, all the excess energy (calories) we eat get stored as fat. You can't put too much gas in a car without it spilling out. Your body takes the excess and it turns it into FAT (a backup energy source) so when you exercise or eat less your body burns the stored fat for energy = weight loss.
but let's go back to the car analogy to someone who is under 5,4 or 3% bodyfat - then we may have a more accurate analogy.
Learn a bit about the NEAT method, and then criticize. It is simply one approach to calculating your calories, and differs from the TDEE calculation. After that, if you want to use TDEE, then use TDEE, but at least understand them first. The point is that if you don't eat back exercise calories while using the NEAT method, then you are eating less than what you are (should) be targeting. If you are obese, it won't matter as much, but you still need to be getting sufficient nutrition and that gets progressively harder the fewer calories you eat.0 -
They are all wrong. Not a single one of those things actually measures calorie burn.I have a heart rate monitor that states ~1000... The elliptial machine states around 875-910 depends on the resistance. Then, MFP runs about 1,150... so i will just average it at ~1000.
Heart rate based devices are notorious for over-estimating calorie burn in people with below-average cardiovascular fitness.My heart rate stays above 155 to 172 at most times during this exercise.
Because they're all doing the same math from similar assumptions. It's not three voices - it's one voice, in three dialects.How can I have 3 things telling me something to an average of ~1000 and yet still have the calories really be under.
I would start by cutting the numbers in half. You'll have to track for a few weeks to see if actual weigh loss matches the assumption (this of course requires diligent food logging). Adjust from there, as cutting by half may well still be a considerable over-estimate. If you want to be super-conservative, cut the reported number by 75%, as that may give you room to adjust upwards later, which may be lighter mental load (it would be for me, anyway!)So what exactly am I burning if all three have all around the same idea calorie burn for my stature?
Good luck!0 -
Hi OP hopefully you have had your question answered now. My advice is not about eating back calories but, ironically, about advice. There is a multi-billion dollar weight loss industry out there from Weight Watchers down to independent P.Ts who know that if they get people to lose weight quickly the same people will gain it back a short time later. they then go straight back to the same people who helped them lose the first time. The business model is about revolving doors, it's not in their interest to sell sustainable life long weight loss. The people on the MFP boards are not in the business. Look at the length of time some of them have been here, look at their tickers and hear their stories. They have got there by the long road of hard work and sensible eating. They also have nothing to gain from sharing their advice.
Just something to consider when you read back over your thread. Good luck on your journey0 -
unsure whether it's gone off topic now but in answer to your question, and in agreement with the first few answers, yes you're already in deficit and when you burn calories you're increasing the deficit.. too much and your body can enter starvation mode and will essentially hold onto your fat making it harder to budge it.
let's say you need 1800 per day to maintain weight, so mfp tells you to eat, not exercise, just eat 1300.. that's a 500kcal deficit and you're body is essentially in weight loss mode
say like you burn 300kcal at the gym, your body is in 800kcal deficit which is a bit too much so you eat the calories back giving your body the energy. The exercise you have just done though has still been beneficial to your body, toning up muscle, burning fat etc so you havent just wasted your time.
0 -
never "eat back" your exercise calories UNLESS you want to lose weight slower OR if for some reason you are hungier (which happens with increased activity) but my advice is to NOT eat those calories back. If defeats the purpose of exercise.
You should exercise to burn extra fat, calories or lose weight faster.
You shouldn't exercise just so you can eat more
This is terrible advice, I advise no one to follow it. Losing weight as fast as possible to the point of endangering your health is NOT the way to go.
QFT!
The point of exercise should be fitness, not burning a certain amount of calories.
That's why I eat TDEE-%. I keep my exercise goals completely separate from weight loss goals.0 -
For me, eating more IS the point.
Without exercise I could only eat 1800 calories.
With exercise, I can eat up to 2500. I like to eat a lot, so I exercise.
Exercise also tones and builds muscle.
Yep, me too! I'm a foodie and I wasn't going to leave any calories on the table that didn't need to be left! Loved my long run days because a 10+ mile run equalled a high volume food day for me.
Yes, this. The thing is, sure it's possible to generate a "healthy" deficit and lose 2 pounds a week with diet alone. BUT it's a BUMMER, man! Raise your hands if a doctor or nutritionist has ever devised a meal plan that includes suppers frequently composed of "3 oz broiled skinless chicken breast, 1 cup brown rice, 1 cup steamed broccoli." It's eye-rollingly maddening: you might be able to eat that way for a couple of weeks (or if you were imprisoned in a hospital), but most people would never commit to eating that way exclusively for an extended period of their lives, let alone for a long-term lifestyle change.
My typical workout burns more than 500 calories. Those extra calories make my healthy meals enjoyable, and part of a long-term lifestyle that I'm happy to commit to. With a few hundred extra calories a day, a person can include things like avocado, cheese, and peanut butter in their diets. A glass of wine with dinner. A nip of chocolate, or a couple of slices of bacon once in a while. Whatever little things you love, in moderate quantities. All while still eating at a substantial deficit and losing a healthy amount of weight every week. I've lost nearly 40 pounds since June, and I don't feel like quitting AT ALL, because my diet and lifestyle are sustainable and enjoyable.0 -
as for skin elasticity (or loose skin) most people mistake loose skin for simply more fat they have to lose. Pinch the skin on the back of your hand which is VERY thin - that's loose skin. pinching skin in other areas that is thicker anywhere else is just more fat you need to lose
That's just not true. You are clearly not a person who ever had loose skin, or you'd know better. Skin stretches to accommodate you when you're fat but it doesn't always shrink back down again when you lose the weight. The older you get, the more true that is. These are the facts.0 -
as for skin elasticity (or loose skin) most people mistake loose skin for simply more fat they have to lose. Pinch the skin on the back of your hand which is VERY thin - that's loose skin. pinching skin in other areas that is thicker anywhere else is just more fat you need to lose
That's just not true. You are clearly not a person who ever had loose skin, or you'd know better. Skin stretches to accommodate you when you're fat but it doesn't always shrink back down again when you lose the weight. The older you get, the more true that is. These are the facts.
Exactly.... you wanna see what skin that is stretched out and has no hope of going back to normal and is definitely not just fat needing to be reduced, go check out my shirtless photos....
www.gettingfit4life.com0 -
That's awesome. I have a website too. Doesn't make me anything other than a "guy that paid for a domain name."That's just not true. You are clearly not a person who ever had loose skin, or you'd know better. Skin stretches to accommodate you when you're fat but it doesn't always shrink back down again when you lose the weight. The older you get, the more true that is. These are the facts.
maybe this will help: http://www.nowloss.com/how-to-get-rid-of-loose-skin.htm - In most cases i deal with personally it's just more fat someone has to lose. Only surgery can truly get rid of loose skin0 -
That's just not true. You are clearly not a person who ever had loose skin, or you'd know better. Skin stretches to accommodate you when you're fat but it doesn't always shrink back down again when you lose the weight. The older you get, the more true that is. These are the facts.
maybe this will help: http://www.nowloss.com/how-to-get-rid-of-loose-skin.htm - In most cases i deal with personally it's just more fat someone has to lose. Only surgery can truly get rid of loose skin
Here's a link about loose skin I copied from Stroutman (those who've been around know he's knowledgable)
http://www.burnthefat.com/loose_skin.html
And nice try plugging your website. After your displays on this forum, your's is the last I'd ever recommend.0 -
They are all wrong. Not a single one of those things actually measures calorie burn.I have a heart rate monitor that states ~1000... The elliptial machine states around 875-910 depends on the resistance. Then, MFP runs about 1,150... so i will just average it at ~1000.
Heart rate based devices are notorious for over-estimating calorie burn in people with below-average cardiovascular fitness.My heart rate stays above 155 to 172 at most times during this exercise.
Because they're all doing the same math from similar assumptions. It's not three voices - it's one voice, in three dialects.How can I have 3 things telling me something to an average of ~1000 and yet still have the calories really be under.
I would start by cutting the numbers in half. You'll have to track for a few weeks to see if actual weigh loss matches the assumption (this of course requires diligent food logging). Adjust from there, as cutting by half may well still be a considerable over-estimate. If you want to be super-conservative, cut the reported number by 75%, as that may give you room to adjust upwards later, which may be lighter mental load (it would be for me, anyway!)So what exactly am I burning if all three have all around the same idea calorie burn for my stature?
Good luck!
If HRMs, machines, and MFP were all at least 50% off then why wouldn't they just cut their current estimates in half themselves thus making their estimates twice as accurate?
Aren't the formulas these all use, used because they are considered the most generically accurate?
(not being snarky, I am genuinely curious)0 -
the point I'm trying to make about "FAST" is that it's okay if you lose over 2 pounds a week and if you happen to lose 5 pounds in a week then that's okay and no need to panic about that or vice versa...
if you lose under 2 pounds a week that is also okay.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding here but I getting the feeling here that some of you think losing over 2 pounds a week is dangerous or unhealthy. It's perfectly fine to lose way over 2 pounds in your first weeks (or months) just starting a new diet + workout
Sweet baby JC. The reason people lose 10 lbs in the first week is because their glycogen stores are depleted and they're losing almost entirely water weight.
Preach!!!!0 -
They are all wrong. Not a single one of those things actually measures calorie burn.I have a heart rate monitor that states ~1000... The elliptial machine states around 875-910 depends on the resistance. Then, MFP runs about 1,150... so i will just average it at ~1000.
Heart rate based devices are notorious for over-estimating calorie burn in people with below-average cardiovascular fitness.My heart rate stays above 155 to 172 at most times during this exercise.
Because they're all doing the same math from similar assumptions. It's not three voices - it's one voice, in three dialects.How can I have 3 things telling me something to an average of ~1000 and yet still have the calories really be under.
I would start by cutting the numbers in half. You'll have to track for a few weeks to see if actual weigh loss matches the assumption (this of course requires diligent food logging). Adjust from there, as cutting by half may well still be a considerable over-estimate. If you want to be super-conservative, cut the reported number by 75%, as that may give you room to adjust upwards later, which may be lighter mental load (it would be for me, anyway!)So what exactly am I burning if all three have all around the same idea calorie burn for my stature?
Good luck!
If HRMs, machines, and MFP were all at least 50% off then why wouldn't they just cut their current estimates in half themselves thus making their estimates twice as accurate?
Aren't the formulas these all use, used because they are considered the most generically accurate?
(not being snarky, I am genuinely curious)
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1044313-this-is-why-hrms-have-limited-use-for-tracking-calories
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/post/new/1110568-whats-the-point-of-excercise-if-i-eat-back-the-calories?quote=171715020 -
If HRMs, machines, and MFP were all at least 50% off then why wouldn't they just cut their current estimates in half themselves thus making their estimates twice as accurate?
Aren't the formulas these all use, used because they are considered the most generically accurate?
(not being snarky, I am genuinely curious)
The formulas have assumptions more suitable for their target market, which is people who are already pretty fit, doing steady state cardio for long stretches of time. Four months ago, my HRM gave vastly over-estimated results - now, I can cycle 45km and run 10km and yada yada yada and it's no longer very far off.0 -
If HRMs, machines, and MFP were all at least 50% off then why wouldn't they just cut their current estimates in half themselves thus making their estimates twice as accurate?
Aren't the formulas these all use, used because they are considered the most generically accurate?
(not being snarky, I am genuinely curious)
So in other words, based on the OP of the first link there, HRMs are basically fine for steady state cardio and do not need to be cut in half?
So for walking, running, jogging, elliptical machines, and similar aerobics at a steady pace it's fine, or at least fine-ish? No need to chop it in half?
For programs like P90X, Insanity, T25, and many others they would not be so good?The formulas have assumptions more suitable for their target market, which is people who are already pretty fit, doing steady state cardio for long stretches of time. Four months ago, my HRM gave vastly over-estimated results - now, I can cycle 45km and run 10km and yada yada yada and it's no longer very far off.
How do you know that the HRM estimates you got 4 months ago were vastly over-estimated?
How do you know that the current HRM estimates aren't the incorrect ones?
(again not being snarky, or argumentative here, just genuinely curious and looking to soak up accurate knowledge you might be dropping)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions