Should i be eating ALL my exercise calories.

cupcakecarnivore

Alright, I know I know, this has been asked 100 times but this is sort of different. My BMR is 1349 and I am 5'3 and 133 pounds, trying to get down to 120...my caloric intake the site has given me is 1200 calories. SOOOO.....if I do exercise, and eat all my exercise calories back, isn't it going to take me a really, really long time to lose even one pound? I basically just want some opinions on whether it would be detrimental to maybe leave a bit more of a deficit? I've heard from a few people that 1200 isn't necessarily the magic number and that smaller people sometimes can go a little lower? However, I've also heard that when you don't have as much to lose it is necessary to eat back those calories. If I do though, that kind of only leaves me a deficit of 149 calories! So basically I'd be losing 1 pound every three weeks! Ugh that seems sooo slow! I guess Im just getting frustrated since Im working out every day like crazy, always near my calorie goal and haven't lost a pound in about two weeks! Anyone have any insight?

bhepp

I was wondering the same thing! A few years ago I had the Bodybugg and with that to lose 2lbs a week it had me maintaining a 1000 calorie deficit. I don't understand how I would lose weight if I ate all the calories I burned!

meggonkgonk

When you are so close to your goal- ie in a healthy weight range and losing weight more for personal preference- than it SHOULD take you a while to lose a lb. Your settings should be closer to 1/2 lb than a lb per week. Sorry, I know that's not the answer you want to hear but you are close to your goal- your body has less expendable fat and energy.

But I think you are confused. Your BMR is not how much you burn in a day. It's how much you would burn if you were in a coma and all your body had to do was sustain your organs. If you go to your "Goals" page you will see how much MFP estimates from your daily life. It takes this number, and to create a 1 pound a week deficit, deducts 500 calories per day.

Generally speaking, your calorie goal (NET number) should be relatively close to your BMR as this is what is needed by your body to continue keeping your vital functions running. Eating back ALL of your exercise calories will not slow your weightloss. If you are intent on keepting 1200 calories as your goal, you absolutely NEED to eat back all of your exercise cals because your NET calories need to be 1200.

ffemtchris

If your BMR is 1349 and you are only consuming 1200, you are already burning off extra weight (149 calories worth).
Eating the calories equal to your exercise just means you're still only losing 149 calories a day.
If you don't eat the exercise calories (say 600), you would lose 749 calories (600+149). This should help you lose more quickly.

As for which is better, I'm not sure. You're body needs energy to work harder.
My personal preference is to eat into them if I'm hungry (and don't if I'm not).
For example, last night I burned 795 calories and ate 240 (4 double stuff oreos as a treat).
I still burned off a net of 555.

meggonkgonk

I was wondering the same thing! A few years ago I had the Bodybugg and with that to lose 2lbs a week it had me maintaining a 1000 calorie deficit. I don't understand how I would lose weight if I ate all the calories I burned!

2lbs a week is for if you are morbidly obese or higher. My total goal is 50 lbs (including pre-mfp) and I have never had my settings above 1 lbs a week. 1000 calorie deficit, if you don't have the body mass to sustain it, is dangerous.

scagneti

When you are so close to your goal- ie in a healthy weight range and losing weight more for personal preference- than it SHOULD take you a while to lose a lb. Your settings should be closer to 1/2 lb than a lb per week. Sorry, I know that's not the answer you want to hear but you are close to your goal- your body has less expendable fat and energy.

But I think you are confused. Your BMR is not how much you burn in a day. It's how much you would burn if you were in a coma and all your body had to do was sustain your organs. If you go to your "Goals" page you will see how much MFP estimates from your daily life. It takes this number, and to create a 1 pound a week deficit, deducts 500 calories per day.

Generally speaking, your calorie goal (NET number) should be relatively close to your BMR as this is what is needed by your body to continue keeping your vital functions running. Eating back ALL of your exercise calories will not slow your weightloss. If you are intent on keepting 1200 calories as your goal, you absolutely NEED to eat back all of your exercise cals because your NET calories need to be 1200.

Yes! If you spend your entire day laying in bed, barely blinking, your body uses 1349 calories just to cover things like breathing, organ functions, etc. Once you start adding in walking around and digestion and everything else you do in a day (excluding exercise), your deficit increases. So at 1200 calories, you've fed your body enough to supply your organs with blood & oxygen. If you add in a vigourous workout routine, you'll be giving your body 200-300 calories for what would normally take 1349 calories to perform effectively. Does that sound healthy or sustainable??

willimh

You should eat enough in your day so when you exercise your net at the end of the nite is 1200 so, the answer is yes you should be eating enough which means you may have to eat some back but, do it healthy. Maybe some nuts, fruit, protein etc.

So that I don't have to make up the difference, I eat about 1570 cals so all I have to do is worry about burning 360 cals to be at my 1200 net by the end of the nite. Good luck

meggonkgonk

If your BMR is 1349 and you are only consuming 1200, you are already burning off extra weight (149 calories worth).
Eating the calories equal to your exercise just means you're still only losing 149 calories a day.
If you don't eat the exercise calories (say 600), you would lose 749 calories (600+149). This should help you lose more quickly.

I'm sorry if this causes an arguement, but this is just plain not correct.

If your BMR is 1349, this is what you burn doing NOTHING but breathing and keeping your heart beating. This is the amount needed to keep your body functioning at the most BASIC. I, for example, have a BMR of 1377. But MFP calculates my daily calorie expenditure as 1720 based on my activity level. My daily calorie goal is set at 1350 before any exercise, and my weekly weightloss projection is .8 lbs. I manually set it to this so that I put in close to my BMR everyday. My daily deficit is 370 (daily activity-calorie goal) calories, NOT 27 (BMR-Calorie goal).

Does that make sense? To see your est. daily burn go to Home>Goals

cupcakecarnivore

Thanks everyone:) That definitely makes a lot more sense! Guess I'll just have to keep plugging away and realize im going to have to be a lot more patient to lose the last bit of weight:)

janesmith1

My opinion is no. I think *everyone* is different but for me, I need to stay in the 1400 & under zone to lose weight. And that is whether I exercise or not. Exercise seems to help me get more energetic and fit, but calories, again FOR ME, need to stay in the under 1400 a day zone. And the proof is in my signature.

columbiasmiles

As I understand, it goes like this.

My BMR 1620, I need to eat this amount of calories to fuel my my body even though I am just sitting on but all day. To lose weight I must as I understand.

1) Eat my 1620 a day and go workout to burn burn 420 (because my net calories cannot fall under 1200, they say this is not healthy). I will lose .8lbs a week.
or
2) I can just eat 1200 calories a day which hopefully forces my system to go into my fat reserve to get the other 420 calories, which would still cause me to lose the .8lbs a week.

To lose any amount of weight you should stay under your BMR.

Me personally, I love, love food. So I try to burn off 250+ calories a day so I can eat more food.

columbiasmiles

As I understand, it goes like this.

My BMR 1620, I need to eat this amount of calories to fuel my my body even though I am just sitting on but all day. To lose weight I must as I understand.

1) Eat my 1620 a day and go workout to burn burn 420 (because my net calories cannot fall under 1200, they say this is not healthy). I will lose .8lbs a week.
or
2) I can just eat 1200 calories a day which hopefully forces my system to go into my fat reserve to get the other 420 calories, which would still cause me to lose the .8lbs a week.

To lose any amount of weight you should stay under your BMR.

Me personally, I love, love food. So I try to burn off 250+ calories a day so I can eat more food.

meggonkgonk

As I understand, it goes like this.

My BMR 1620, I need to eat this amount of calories to fuel my my body even though I am just sitting on but all day. To lose weight I must as I understand.

1) Eat my 1620 a day and go workout to burn burn 420 (because my net calories cannot fall under 1200, they say this is not healthy). I will lose .8lbs a week.
or
2) I can just eat 1200 calories a day which hopefully forces my system to go into my fat reserve to get the other 420 calories, which would still cause me to lose the .8lbs a week.

To lose any amount of weight you should stay under your BMR.

Me personally, I love, love food. So I try to burn off 250+ calories a day so I can eat more food.

NO. This is NOT NOT NOT NOT right.

If your BMR is 1620, than you are probably burning around1900 calories a day, just by living a sedentary lifestyle (this is only an estimate. To see what MFP estimates that you burn click the "my home" tab and then the "goal" button under it.)

So in the example above, to lose 1lb a week you need to eat roughly 1400 calories (1900-500=1400). If you were to eat 1200 in this example, your deficit would be 700, this making your weightloss around 1.5 lb/wk if you ate like this for a week. BUT, since your BMR is 1620, there is still a chance that you could go into starvation mode, plateau, OR just have negative effects on your body and health, because your body is short 400+ calories for running itself.

1200 is a base number minimum that health professionals generally agree that no one should ever go under for an extended period of time. It's not written in stone, and if you can be over this and still lose weight, you should. Everyone is different and these numbers are all estimates, so I do encourage people to keep eating at where they are losing, but generally speaking, the closer to your BMR you can be while still losing weight, the better.

Does that make sense? Being significantly UNDER your BMR should not be your goal, you should calculate your deficit from the estimate of daily calories burned on your goals page.