Exercise and weight loss……im confused

starlte

Lets say my daily calorie intake is supposed to be 1200. I exercise and work off 200 calories. now i have to eat 200 more calories. Where does the weight loss come in? am i loosing weight by exercising? i see the people on shows like the biggest looser, and i know they are burning more calories than they are eating. according to myfitnesspal, you shouldnt do that. whats the benefit of exercising to loose weight if you have to eat all the calories right back? im really confused. HELP!!!!

MzBug

MFP already has your calorie deficit built in your calorie goal for the 1-2 pounds a week you told it you wanted to lose. The suggested minimum calories per day for a healthy woman is 1200 just to function properly. When you eat 1200 and then exercise off 200 you are at 1000 for the day. That takes you below the suggested amount of 1200 per day. So MFP adds the 200 back in so you get back to the goal calories for the day.

Fgillies

Thanks for asking the question- AND for the answer!! I was wondering this myself as today is my first day logging and i now have almost 700 calories more to eat!! I hope i can get them in, but it's basically time for bed, im exhausted, and dont even know if i can eat more...anyway, sorry for the extra info, lol..Just wanted to say thanks!!

lgeren

I'm still lost. How are you supposed to lose weight if you are eating back the calories you burn? Like the poster said, on biggest loser they say the goal is to burn more calories than you eat so you can lose. So is that only in cases of extreme weight loss like they are doing on biggest loser? It's hard for me eat back the calories I've burned off when I've just worked so hard to burn them off.

rsensenig

I do not follow their reccomendation, right or wrong. I have been eating between 1200 and 1400 calories a day and burn between 500 and 1000 calories a day in exercise. It is working for me. I do not find myself tired, and have went from 200 pounds to 180 pounds in 6 weeks. I can see better definition as I am both lifting weights and doing cardio, was mostly walking and eliptical, but just started zumba. On a side note, it's kind of cool being the only guy in a zumba class with 20 or so women.

lin19e

My doctor says I need to burn 3,500 calories to lose a pound, so I too am confused! I've logged 2 days (I'm new) and both days because of exercise I'm under 1200. I'm not weighing again until this Sunday so I'll find out then if this is working.

vikeschick42

Eating 1200 calories and burning 200 leaves you with a net of 1000, which is too low. So you need to eat them back to get you back to 1200. And you will STILL lose at 1200 calories because you would normally be eating around 2000-2500 on a normal day. So you are still getting your deficit in calorie intake to reach your weight loss goal. The reason they want you to eat the workout calories back is to make sure you don't go too low.
So basically 1200 is the minimum with or without exercise. If you exercise, you need to make sure your net calories are at least 1200. Exercising helps speed up your metabolism, builds muscle, tones, and basically allows you to eat more and still lose the same amount of weight.
Hope that helps.

MzBug

Ok, another example... If your calorie goal was 1400 per day. You exercise 300 calories away. You are left with 1100 for the day. So far so good. The recommended is 1200 for a female, so you would only have to eat back 100 (1100 + 100 = 1200) instead of all 300 that you had burned. Logical? You don't have to get back up to the 1400, BUT MFP will put all 300 on your food diary so they are available if needed. The idea is to keep your metabolism at the correct balance for health, that is why the 1200 NET is so strongly recommended.

This actually comes in very handy if you know you have an event to attend and you know you will be either eatting or drinking extra calories. If you exercise before you go to the event you will have extra calories you can consume WITHOUT messing up your weight loss.

alyssa83202

I asked this question a few days ago and I got a lot of great answers, give me a minute and I'll find the link and post it!

alyssa83202

I asked this question a few days ago and I got a lot of great answers, give me a minute and I'll find the link and post it!

Here, read this. It cleared up a lot for me!
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/148906-can-someone-help-me-understand-this

triben

I have posted on this topic in the past and I agree with not re eating all of your exercise calories. I was hoping someone high up in MFP could point to some scientific evidence for the way MFP does it. I agree don't go to low but you don't need to eat it all back. the basic equation is calories in vs calories out. Calories in would be your food.intake. Calories out would be your BMR plus exercise. if you have a negative caloric balance then you lose weight. if you have a positive caloric balance then you gain weight.

studies have been done were patients have been on 500 calorie diets and lost weight ( I in no way am advocating for this) and they lost weight. they were more likely to regain it and they ended up missing some vital nutrients. That is why life style change is important and to eat a balanced diet.

to my knowledge there is no scientific study comparing weight lose in patients who have a caloric deficit from food restriction compared to food restriction and exercise were the last group eats more food but has the vital nutrients in food which is what a lot of us are doing.

someone in MFP please chime in and shed some light on the subject. this comes up a lot.

alyssa83202

I have posted on this topic in the past and I agree with not re eating all of your exercise calories. I was hoping someone high up in MFP could point to some scientific evidence for the way MFP does it. I agree don't go to low but you don't need to eat it all back. the basic equation is calories in vs calories out. Calories in would be your food.intake. Calories out would be your BMR plus exercise. if you have a negative caloric balance then you lose weight. if you have a positive caloric balance then you gain weight.

studies have been done were patients have been on 500 calorie diets and lost weight ( I in no way am advocating for this) and they lost weight. they were more likely to regain it and they ended up missing some vital nutrients. That is why life style change is important and to eat a balanced diet.

to my knowledge there is no scientific study comparing weight lose in patients who have a caloric deficit from food restriction compared to food restriction and exercise were the last group eats more food but has the vital nutrients in food which is what a lot of us are doing.

someone in MFP please chime in and shed some light on the subject. this comes up a lot.

I asked the same thing. Read this thread:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/148906-can-someone-help-me-understand-this and definitely read the link that another user posted in that thread, it explained a lot!

manetta1

I think it truly depends on the person personally. Sort of like the some diets work for some people and some just don't at all. I think we are trying to make it too complicated. Try it for a month with eatting half of your exercise calories back. If your unsatisfied with your weight loss than do away with your exercise calories. From my own personal experience, BOTH have worked for me. I would say that lately I've gone to eatting half my exercise calories and my weight loss has been slower, but effective. I found I had bigger drops in weight when I didn't eat my exercise calories, BUT felt i craved things more. Do a lil trial and error.

Mike

42718

I don't eat all my calories back. I am like you what good does it to exercise, but my youngest daughter does eat hers back and she still has a loss each week.

42718

you will loose weight at that rate. My calorie intake is supposed to be 1470 per day. I exercise 30 minutes a day. Last week was my first week at doing this and I had a loss. I was so proud of myself, because I loose so slowly, that it is discouraging sometimes. Hope you have a good week.

MercuryBlue

I try to eat at least half my calories back.

The thing is, if you don't eat your calories back... you will lose weight. But you'll also potentially be doing damage to your metabolism and your body, hindering your weight loss down the line and making you more likely to gain it back in the future when you start eating more again.

Not to mention, when you're burning calories, only some of those calories are coming from fat. If you're not feeding your body the nutrients it needs you're going to not only lose fat, but muscle too. The trick is to keep a caloric deficit, while also eating enough so that your muscles can repair themselves. Basically, by eating back your exercise calories, you're doing your body a favor... in the long run. You're still getting the deficit needed to lose weight, but you're also doing your part to burn gross fat and not important muscle.

(Edit: A bit of a simplified explanation. I've got a meeting to go to in a minute.... )

MzBug

I think Dr Oz explained it well on his show yesterday (1/10/11). Go to his site if you have the time and watch it. Basically your body is looking for NUTRITION from your food. If your food doesn't supply what the body is looking for it will canabalize its own tissues to get it. When you do this you are losing muscle tissue that burns the calories. When you lose muscle tissue you are slowing your weight loss. You have to keep the body fueled correctly to keep it operating without turning to its own tissues to get it.

xp0sed

I'm having a lot of trouble with this, if someone could help me I will be very grateful.

According to My Fitness Pal, I need to eat 1210 calories a day, which as it is just a small amount above the "1200 calories I NEED to eat a day". Without exercising, I'm having a hard time getting to 1210, then I do an hour of cardio and I'm another 300ish calories below.

What the heck am I supposed to do? I hate eating simply to get to my 1210, especially if I'm not hungry. Seems like a waste.

katherines2230

It was difficult for me to understand as well but let me try to explain. Let's say I put in that I want to lose 2 pounds per week and MFP gives me a daily calorie goal of 1300. So if I only eat the 1300 calories I'm still going to lose. So then let's say I workout and burn off 700 calories. If I eat those back plus my daily 1300, my net caloric consumption for the day is 1300(because the workout canceled itself out by the 700 I ate back) but you will still lose because 1300 calories yields a loss of 2 pounds a week, make sense?

So then it may seem that you are exercising for no reason but this is not true. Exercising boosts your metabolic rate so that you are burning mire calories at rest than if you did not exercise. Sometimes i don't eat back all the calories I burn and sometimes I do but either way I still lose because I'm already eating the minimum number of calories I need to lose 2 pounds per week at 1300 per day. Geez, I've started to confuse myself!!

Teemo

Lets say my daily calorie intake is supposed to be 1200. I exercise and work off 200 calories. now i have to eat 200 more calories. Where does the weight loss come in? am i loosing weight by exercising? i see the people on shows like the biggest looser, and i know they are burning more calories than they are eating. according to myfitnesspal, you shouldnt do that. whats the benefit of exercising to loose weight if you have to eat all the calories right back? im really confused. HELP!!!!

It's not as complicated as it seems. You can do take one of two options and still lose weight.

Option A: Eat 1,300 calories per day + do 0 calories worth of exercise = 1,300 total calories.

Result A: You will lose 1-2 lbs per week.

Option B: Eat 1,600 calories per day + do 300 calories worth of exercise = 1,300 total calories.

Result B: You will lose 1-2 lbs per week; your heart, aerobic/lung capacity, bone density, and endurance will be improved, you will preserve more muscle which further helps your weight loss goals and contributes to having a 'toned' look.

MercuryBlue

So then it may seem that you are exercising for no reason but this is not true. Exercising boosts your metabolic rate so that you are burning mire calories at rest than if you did not exercise. Sometimes i don't eat back all the calories I burn and sometimes I do but either way I still lose because I'm already eating the minimum number of calories I need to lose 2 pounds per week at 1300 per day. Geez, I've started to confuse myself!!

You're totally right.

I've got a great example of why exercise is so important. Something I've had to learn the hard way. Hopefully I'm explaining it properly, because I'm by no means an expert (and I'm trying to explain based on what I've read and learned from others).

Ten years ago, I weighed between 119 and 125 pounds. I spent a lot of time dancing and doing physical things- so I was pretty nicely 'toned', as they say. My body fat percentage was probably about 25% and I felt I looked pretty good. I wasn't buff and certainly was no supermodel, but I was healthy.

I gained a bunch of weight after having kids and started really actively trying to lose weight in November of 2009. I worked out a lot between then and February 2010- lost quite a bit of weight (about twenty pounds) and started to gain good muscle definition... gradually. Then I took a part-time job on top of my full-time job and stopped working out. Still watched what I ate, but never had the time for exercise. In that time I lost another ten pounds or so... but the weight loss was different this time.

The first twenty pounds I lost was done properly- through diet and exercise, eating back most of my exercise calories. So while I was losing weight, I was also nourishing my body and giving my body what it needed to repair itself. Most of what I was losing was actually FAT mass. My muscles, underneath the fat, were healthy and strong.

The last ten pounds, I've lost through diet alone. And not even a great 'diet'. I've eaten some junk. There were days where I would eat breakfast, but forget to pack a lunch. I'd work a nine and a half hour shift with no real food, and when I got hungry I'd eat a chocolate bar. I'd eat a good dinner, but never consume nearly as much after work as I burned at work. Yes, I lost weight- but I started feeling weak, my hair and skin looked kind of dead, and I was tired all the time. Also, eventually, the weight stopped coming off. The lowest I got was 131 pounds (6 from my initial goal) and the scale would NOT budge any further.

Now I'm finding myself in a position where I have to fix my metabolism- which is going to take some work. If I eat ANY junk, I gain weight almost instantly (whereas when I was working out, I could 'slip up' every so often and still see a loss). I'm at 134.5 right now.

Here's the thing- when I was this same weight years back (after having gained a bit of weight, though I was still more active than I am now) I looked way thinner. This was because my BF% was lower than it is now. What's happened is, as a result of not eating enough, or exercising enough, I've lost muscle. So instead of being a toned 134.5, I'm a flabby and jiggly 134.5 . Does that make sense?

I went out in a bathing suit the other day and still felt flabby and gross. Initially I was blaming my 'loose skin' but I've since learned that that's probably not what it is. It's just that my muscles are weak, and they're still covered in fat. That last ten pounds or so I lost was partially fat- but partially muscle. Which you don't want to lose.

This is the problem with scales, and the focus on 'getting that number down'. Because I'm living proof that the number isn't everything. People are so focused on getting that scale to go DOWN- as quickly as possible, by any means necessary- that they tend to neglect what really matters... and that's our health. I've since altered my weight goals to acknowledge the fact that I have a lot more FAT still to lose. But I'm also at a point where I'm not even 100% sure what the right 'weight' for me is. If I keep doing what I was doing before, I might lose- but I'll be a flabby, jiggly 120-pound girl. Which I don't want.

My new goal is to lose FAT, even if it means gaining weight. I would like to get myself to about 20% bodyfat. Once this happens, I don't care what the final number on the scale is- because I'll be able to physically see the results. And, the fact is, I'm not going to get the SHAPE that I want by cutting calories alone, or by not eating my exercise calories (ie- starving myself). I've been there, I've seen what happens when my body is deprived of nutrition, and I don't want to go back. I'm only ever going to get the SHAPE that I want by working out, and eating my exercise calories so I'm still getting a deficit but also giving my body what it needs. Oh, the calories should be good ones- not chocolate bars or chips or the like.

starlte

ok, i get it now. exercising isnt just about burning the calories off. there are way more benefits than just that. improved lung function, toning of muscles and so on. thank you all for your replies. i thank you and my untoned butt thanks you too!! :flowerforyou: