Exercise calories controversy ???

yyzdnl

Being new here this topic confused me at first so I studied up on it over the weekend. Eric is correct and the calorie math doesn’t change from one person to another.

There are two general guidelines agreed on by the professionals. First, daily calorie intake for Women shouldn’t go below 1200 calories or 1,500 for men. Second, a single day’s calorie deficit shouldn’t exceed 1,000 calories.

Continuously breaking these guidelines will push one’s body into a famine response where the body will lower its metabolism decreasing weight loss. More importantly the body will start to draw a greater percentage of its energy from muscle instead of fat. As mentioned earlier on this thread normal calorie deficits will have a fat/ protein burn ratio of 75/25 while in famine response it can hit 50/50. The decrease in muscle will further decrease metabolism. This response isn’t like a switch that is turned on an off. Your body is always making changes based on your calorie needs. One misconception I have read on this site is that the famine response can stop weight loss or even cause weight gain. That isn’t true either if your body is at a calorie deficit you will lose weight it is a law of physics.

What makes dieting so hard is the fact that maintaining fat doesn’t require significant energy. Energy is used mainly for life function, expenditure, and a significant amount to maintaining muscle. The problem with dieting is the body doesn’t just burn fat when low on fuel it also burns muscle. Yes, that muscle you need to keep your metabolism up to burn more calories. This is one reason exercise is so important when trying to lose weight. You are trying to build back the muscle lost through your calorie deficit and that requires fuel.

With all that said the main reason people don’t lose weight is they are underestimating calories in or overestimating calories out. For these people not eating exorcise calories can swing weight loss in the right direction. A fine example of two wrongs making a right.

If this works for you fine use your body’s response to let you know you’re on the right track. Can you run as far or lift as much weight as you could last week? If so and your consistent and happy with your weight loss who cares if your math is wrong, but I wouldn’t go recommending it to others who might be counting correctly and need to feed their bodies.

benitocereno

agreed but the 1200 should be 1200 net (1200 plus exercise cals) eating 1200 and burning 800 from exercise is not okay.

Whoops yeah, that's what I meant

Anyway, I'm sorry if anyone here took any of this personally, it's just really frustrating to see people hearing what they want to hear and ignoring things that will invariably impact their health. Anyway, best of luck to you all, and I hope people realize that the minimum is there for a reason.

humpalc

I don't think MFP does ignore your workout goals - if you say you will be exercising 30 minutes a day, it figures that in - I went back and changed my plan from 30 minues a day to 0 minutes a day, and my calorie goal decreased -

I don't eat back ALL of my exercise calories as a RULE, but I try to make sure I'm not consistently too far under my calorie intake goal - for example - if I'm not hungry and don't eat all of my calories for a couple of days, I'm more diligent the next day or two, just to be sure my metabolism doesn't slow down it's burn in response to the calorie deficit.

Try again, it doesn't count it until you enter it in to the exercise tab after you actually perform the exercise. The change in cals may have been from entering in your new lower weight at the same time.

Yep, totally right - it must have changed because my weight was lower, not because of the change in activity level - I should have tried it again before I posted - I HATE being wrong, LOL - thanks

I think the bottom line is, whether you agree with the math or not, like superstarcassie said, you need to fuel your body! (she should know, she's kicking some tail, people). In the end, it's not about the green or red numbers in your profile, or even the number on the scale - it is about being a strong, healthy, active human being, and living the best life you can live - if you are trying to live on sub-1200 calories a day, you need to honestly evaluate how you are feeling, and how your workouts are benefiting you.

pyro13g

MFP ignores your exercise goals when you sign up. It gives you your calorie goal assuming you to no working out, this is why it ads it back when you enter it.

That would explain it. I joined last year so didn't remember it that way.

AmeMahoney

I've never really worried about eating my exercise calories or not. I lost over 100 pounds 12 years ago, and I didn't worry about it then. That's because I set my daily calorie goal at 1700. As long as I eat at least 1200 it doesn't matter. On days I feel more hungry I eat a little more. Most days my goal is to eat 5-6 small meals a day that total "about" 1700 calories. When I exercise my total still won't fall below the minimum (1200). I find worrying and stressing out about it causes me more issues than it's worth, so I just listen to my body and follow my measurements.

runningneo122

I don't know if this was mentioned or not.... didn't want to read through 4 pages. I swear by this book: Burn the Fat Feed the Muscle by Tom Venuto.

Here are 2 reviews:

http://www.fitnesstipsforlife.com/burn-the-fat-feed-the-muscle-complete-review.html

http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archives/2009/12/cheating_on_your_diet.php

ETA: I eat all my exer cals and am steadily losing 2 pounds per week. I run every AM and ISO 3 times a week equaling 10,000+ cals per week.

willimh

I say from experience, set your goal to 1-1 1/2 cals a week. You will get more cals to eat and then you eat those cals through out your day, exercise and that's it, you dont have to try and eat more.

For example: I get 1570 cals to eat, I burn from exercise about 370 which leaves me at my 1200 net cals at the end of the day. It works and you won't feel like you are eating back because you are not. You are eating more to begin with.

Janworkingitout

Come on people! We need to FUEL our bodies! If I only ate 1200 calories per day and didn't back any of my exercise calories I would have given up because I would ALWAYS be hungry. No offense- not eating some of those calories will work for a while....but I guarantee you will stall on your weight loss as time goes on. I'm not saying you have to eat your calories (you can only make that decision), but you need to fuel your body. Too big of a caloric deficit will cause you to burn through your muscle instead of the fat that most of us want to get rid of. Be smart- eat healthy and ENOUGH- exercise!

You got it!

ababygrace

My my my...This discussion is still going. Like I said it is controversial :ohwell:


I plan on eating my calories for the rest of this month to see how well it works for me. I also plan on zigzagging my calories so my daily intake will always be different. In my opinion 1200 is too low for me :noway:

thanks for the inputs and advice.

DrumlineGirl

For those that are confused, think of it in a more backwards way. Let's say you work out at the end of the day instead of the beginning. You're going to do a workout and burn 300 calories.

Your calorie goal for the day, in order to lose 1 lb a week (or insert whatever your goal is) is 1400 calories (or whatever your actual number is). So throughout the day, you eat 1700 calories. Then you go do your workout and burn 300 calories. You have just netted 1400. You have also eaten your exercise calories. But, since your goal is to lose 1 lb a week, you need to not go over 1400. Since you exercised, you got to eat those extra 300 calories. You will still lose weight because the number is the same.

Simple math.

Example 2: (made up numbers)

In order to lose 1 lb a week, you must eat 1400 calories a day (as opposed to 1800 to maintain).

You eat 1700, you burn 300 in workout= 1400 (eating back exercise calories)
You eat 1400, you don't work out= 1400
You eat 1400, you burn 300=1100 (not eating back exercise calories)

In all of those scenarios, you are never OVER calories, you are still creating a deficit, and losing weight. In the 3rd scenario of not eating those cals back, you are probably too low on protein and nutrition, and possibly slowing your metabolism because your body needs fuel to live.

Momtotwo

bump

srs1881

Well said DrumlineGirl it just makes sense the way you broke it down.

Thank you

givprayz

I want to add something about doctor's advice for dieting. Doctors receive less than 4 hours of training on nutrition. Now if you had under 4 hours to learn all about vitamins, minerals, protein metabolism, weight gain and weight loss, do you think you would be able to give good advice about it to your friends? NO! If you don't believe that is how much they get, ask. It's true.


Now, I can't see any nutritionist saying it is ok to take in 1200 calories and then burn 500 exercising, as one person posted. Nutritionists should know what it takes to fuel the system is not measured in just calories. If you are breaking down fat to fuel your activity, that's great, but you also need additional nutrients in order to feed the millions of processes going on in the cells, as well as rebuild muscle tissue destroyed during exercise. If those raw materials aren't available, muscle tissue will be further catabolized so the basic functions of life can go on. So yes, you will lose weight, but you are losing muscle, bone and organ tissue in order to fuel the basic processes needed in your body. It is basic bio-chemistry. If you need a certain molecule to make, say hormones, you need to get it anywhere you can, so the body will get it from another body part. You need raw materials, period. There shouldn't even be an argument.

If you must, stop thinking about it as eating back the calories and think of it as eating back the nutrients to rebuild. Would you want to rebuild a building destroyed by a tornado using only the scrap from the storm, or would you ship in new materials to build a strong and lasting structure?

runningneo122

If you must, stop thinking about it as eating back the calories and think of it as eating back the nutrients to rebuild. Would you want to rebuild a building destroyed by a tornado using only the scrap from the storm, or would you ship in new materials to build a strong and lasting structure?

Great way to put that. Well said.

chezst33

I have been stuck at the same weight (-.5, +.3, -1, etc). I was doing 1650 calories a day (see earlier post) & was getting changes in my body shape, but not showing on the scale. My average calorie burn was at least 700/ day. Saw a dietician, and she had me increase to 1800 calories/ day. That was on a Friday, and weighed in the following Tuesday and was done 2.6 pds! This week it looks like I'll be done another 1+ pounds.

She had figured my basal metabolic rate at 1704 or something like that and said i needed to eat above that (1800) due to my calorie burn. My body was stuck in starvation mode. Also, she told me I needed more sleep to help my body as well-- got a guided imagery cd and I'm averaging 2.5 hours more a night!