one... freaking... pound...

lemurcat12

Ok... honest question, how does that differ from the fuel we're eating normally, or the fuel from body fat? I always thought that part of the point of exercise, aside from increasing metabolism and building muscle, was to help create a larger daily caloric deficit.

It is. For example, it's really common to figure out your TDEE (or what you were eating before dieting if you were at maintenance calories or close to it) and then decide to cut 500 calories per day for a one pound loss/week and then try to up exercise to lose more, up to about 2 lbs. However, the way MFP figures your deficit if you tell it you want a 2 lb loss is to ignore the exercise you say you are going to do and create the whole deficit from cutting calories (cutting up to 1000/day from what you would eat for maintenance without exercise). What that means is that if you've asked for the whole 2 lb goal and want to actually split the burden between cutting calories and exercising, you should eat back exercise calories. But when you do you need to be aware that MFP tends to estimate high. (So in other words, if you do this, eat back some percentage of them, not usually all unless you have other reason to trust them.)

Some people say why not cut the full 1000/day and exercise for even more of a deficit, but that goes back to why you shouldn't aim for more than a 2 lb/week deficit in the first place (for most people, not extremely obese people doing a dr supervised diet or various other exceptions). Too high a deficit isn't sustainable for most, risks taking muscle more than a more moderate deficit, and could well be more triggering for someone with an ED, I'd guess, but I'm not an expert there.

That said, if you are aiming for a lower calorie deficit (for example, 1 lb) and want to see if you can boost your loss by exercising some, I see no reason to eat back calories unless you want to or unless they get really high. (I'm assuming here that the person in question can reasonably aim for 2 lbs/week.)

ahoy_m8

My first thought was normal water fluctuation (from cortisol or new exercise or estradiol or whatever). 5 lb fat loss in a month would be fantastic. One salty restaurant meal the night before your 2nd weigh-in could have masked 4 lb of fat loss. The down side of infrequent weighing is you don't see your individual fluctuation pattern, although I understand all the good reasons for weighing monthly.

Don't stop what you're doing. Add monthly measurements. Perhaps like your "reference jeans," have a standard, measured, low-sodium meal (that you truly enjoy!) the night before you weigh-in. Stay fully hydrated. And this is the most important part: weigh at a consistent time in your menstrual cycle. That has the potential to mask another 5lb of fat loss with water retention. If it is really obvious to you when you ovulate, weigh-in 10 days after that. That's usually my lowest weight of the month. More obvious would be 5 days after the start of menses, but you get the idea.

As a female fluctuation example, when I am reducing, I spike at the same weight four Monday's in a row, even when my 7-day trailing average shows a steady decline. (I drink wine on weekends plus same food calories.) My trendline is a steep decline from ovulation to menses and pretty flat after menses to the next month's ovulation. All the comments about accurate logging and weighing everything that you consume, even liquids, helped me tons. Good luck and stick with it. It gets easier.

veganbettie

You should at least eat back a portion of your exercise calories. I say portion because they aren't always accurate....I eat back every single one and then some (sometimes) because i'm using a HRM so I figure it's the most accurate I can get.

One thing that helped me was always remembering that you exercise to be fit, and diet to lose weight.

I run because it's good for my body and mind. I eat less to try to drop the last few pounds.

Don't exercise thinking you're going to lose all this weight, I think it puts people in the wrong mindset.

Remember that MFP already puts you at a deficit to lose weight, so you don't even need to exercise, you just do it so your body stays healthy and strong. So you CAN eat those back, in fact you should in order to keep your body healthy.

meridianova

And this is the most important part: weigh at a consistent time in your menstrual cycle. That has the potential to mask another 5lb of fat loss with water retention. If it is really obvious to you when you ovulate, weigh-in 10 days after that. That's usually my lowest weight of the month. More obvious would be 5 days after the start of menses, but you get the idea.

Not that I would ever wish dying during childbirth on anyone, but one of the awesome side-effects of that was having to have my uterus and one ovary removed. No more PMS!! :laugh:

Seriously though, I do still have something of a cycle because the one ovary I have left still functions normally... supposedly. So I do have to keep that in mind, though it's not nearly as bad as it would be if everything was still intact.

Aaron_K123

Ok... honest question, how does that differ from the fuel we're eating normally, or the fuel from body fat? I always thought that part of the point of exercise, aside from increasing metabolism and building muscle, was to help create a larger daily caloric deficit.

For me the point of calorie counting is to maintain a caloric deficit in which to lose weight at a reasonable rate. The point of exercise is to increase my fitness level and strength. These are two seperate goals. The weight loss goal requires I remain in a regular deficit, the strength and fitness goal requires that I exercise and that exercise needs to be fueled.

If I want to maintain a 500 calorie daily deficit and I don't exercise I eat 1800 calories since my TDEE for that day would be about 2300. If I do an hour of cardio and some lifting and burn 400 calories then I eat 2200 calories since my TDEE for that day would be about 2700. In both cases my caloric deficit remains 500 and I lose weight at the same rate, in the case of exercising I had the added benefit of fitness and strength gains. If I did NOT eat back those calories I would be pushing my deficit to 900 which would be too much and a point at which I was risking muscle loss and decreased athletic performance...I wouldn't be able to maintain that for long and I would find myself getting weaker over time, making it more difficult to bring intensity to my workouts and not making any progression in my fitness.

I eat back my exercise calories. My calorie goal is 1800 but most days I am eating 2200 because of exercise. Here is my weight loss over the last 4 months.



In addition to steady weightloss I have seen endurance and strength gains including being finally able to do pull-ups.

RGv2

Um, eating back exercise calories is fuel....

Ok... honest question, how does that differ from the fuel we're eating normally, or the fuel from body fat? I always thought that part of the point of exercise, aside from increasing metabolism and building muscle, was to help create a larger daily caloric deficit.

MFP builds in your deficit, assuming that you will do NO exercise.

Person 1 is given a goal of 2000 calories, they do no exercise and eat 2000 calories so they'll properly lose weight, right?

Person 2 is given a goal of 2000 calories, they burn off 500 so now they can eat 2500. 2500 - 500 = 2000 calories. So they still meet their goal and will lose weight, right? How would that be overeating. Wouldn't netting 1500 potentially be under eating for said person?

Honestly, I don't know. I was under the impression that when dieting, you should never drop below 1200 calories.

Can a larger person get away with skipping it...ya, but the closer you get to your goal weight the more you need that fuel if you exercise. Again, how would that be overeating?

I guess because I've seen too many other posts on other boards where people attempt to justify "extras" because they've exercised that day. "Oh, I ran half a mile so that lets me have this can of Coke/cookie/doughnut/extra helping/massive slice of cheesecake."

And this confusion just adds to my problems with the calories in < calories out mantra, since that just indicates that the bigger the deficit, the better. So I understand it from a goal weight perspective, and understand why eating more would be required by someone like Michael Phelps who's burning through 7,000 calories a day just in exercise alone. It's harder to understand from a weight loss perspective, at least for me.

I explained it in the 2nd quote. As long as you meet your daily goal, you'll lose weight. If your daily goal is 1600 calories (to safely lose x amount of lbs), whether you get there by eating 1600 calories, or eating 2000 and burning off 400 = 1600.....it's still 1600.

As far as the food being different.... as a person gets closer to their goal weight, their TDEE will drop, thus they cannot handle larger deficits, thus the food they eat back from exercise calories is fuel. The energy stores aren't there anymore to handle a huge deficit.

Take myself for instance...

If I set for 1lb per week I get a goal of 1800 calories. A hard workout for me could be 500-700 calories, thus leaving me with 1100-1300 calories to get through the rest of my day on. That would a deficit of almost 1000 calories per day. I wouldn't be able to fuel my body for the rest of the day at only 1100-1300 calories. Now if I add 500-700 from my exercise I get 2300-2500 calories to get through the rest of the day. Much more doable, leaves me in the same deficit, and I get the benefit from my workout.

Nobody is "justifying" extra calories. They earned them, so they are enjoying them.

Aaron_K123

Honestly I consider the idea that the purpose of exercise is to have a larger calorie deficit to be a very negative and dangerous attitude to hold. Exercise should not be about starving yourself, exercise should be about building a stronger version of yourself and you aren't going to be able to do that if you don't fuel it appropriately.

If you do heavy exercise loads and don't eat your calories back you will actually end up damaging and catabolizing your own muscle.

If all successful healthy weight loss was was to build the largest caloric deficit possible then you would be eating nothing but broccoli and attempting to run marathons daily. Sadly I think in all seriousness some people DO think that is something to strive for. Its not, that is horrible for you and will end up just tearing your body down rather than building it up.

WalkingAlong

For people who don't hit the 1200 floor MFP applies, they can retain their desired deficit and weight loss rate WITH eating back. But if you hit 1200, your goal is reduced. If you 'eat back' you're assuming that reduced goal is still your maximum deficit, despite that you're burning more.

Put differently- Why is it ok for someone who burns say 2200 via their BMR+NEAT to carry a 1000 calorie deficit per day but not someone who burns 2200 via BMR+NEAT+exercise? There is no difference. NEAT is activity. Exercise is activity. It's semantics.