Who cares about burning calories? We want to burn fat, not

ajbeans

Ok, that's great, but it doesn't say HOW you burn fat. I keep seeing this everywhere, "lose fat, not weight." That's all well and dandy, and it's exactly what I want to do, but nobody wants to tell me HOW to do that. All these articles tell you what NOT to do, but they don't tell you what *to* do instead. Frustration! :mad:

MooseWizard

I agree..I dont eat my exercise cals back. Why would I? If that was the case, then diet alone would be enough to lose weigh..why do you think people work out? to burn cals. why in heck would you eat them back?

I think you can lose weight on diet alone, it is just harder. When I started, I did not work out at all for the first two months, yet lost about 25lbs. In January, I started working out 3 days a week, but ate my calories. Guess what? I've lost about another 25lbs.

I think people work out--especially when they go crazy with the cardio and look for 1000+ calorie burns--because they believe that you have to kill yourself and severely diet to lose weight. I have found, and what I think this article is saying, is that it requires a balance. Work out, sure. Decrease calories, sure. But in moderation! Too much of either is bad on their own--too much of both at the same time is terrible.

I'm working out to improve my stamina and heart-health. Later, it will be to add lean muscle mass so that I have a higher BMR and can eat more without gaining weight.

I, for one, do not work out to burn calories--I have already shown I can lose weight without working out. I work out to improve my long-term chances of success.

cbirdso

*bump*

pyro13g

I agree..I dont eat my exercise cals back. Why would I? If that was the case, then diet alone would be enough to lose weigh..why do you think people work out? to burn cals. why in heck would you eat them back?

To avoid starvation mode or slowing your metabolism. You can lose weight on diet alone but without strength training or taxing muscles in other ways to trigger growth, the majority of that weight is your muscle which is also your metabolism.

You must eat your exercise calories. The equation is simple.

Basal Metabolic Rate calorie burn
Plus
Normal Activity calorie burn
Plus
Exercise calorie burn.

Equals number of calories you must eat to maintain current weight.

500 calories less than that is ~1lb per week of loss
1000 less is ~2lb per week.

Average people must not drop below the accepted minimum NET calories for their gender.

People that don't fall within average will have different minimums.

MFP already creates a calorie deficit if you selected one of the lose weight goals based on BMR + Normal activity level. If you don't eat your exercise calories back and are using the MFP calorie recommendation, then you are sabotaging your long
term success. And the more exercise calories you burn and don't eat back the worse it is and is more accelerated.

I often see endurance training and general weight(fat) loss butt heads in the forums. They are different animals. This article doesn't suit the endurance trainee since they must train in this fashion. But, they also know, at least they should, how important fueling and recovery from training is.

The general weight loss people often don't realize that pounding out huge calorie burns only let's you eat more. And you must, to avoid driving your metabolism into the ground and bringing on over training. Low intensity training uses slightly more fat as fuel then medium-high intensity as measured by hear rate. Whether you burn 250 calories on low in 45 minutes or 500 at high in 45 minutes, the fat burn is nearly the same. But, on low you have much less calories to eat back, spares your body the stress(if you are not training for endurance) and makes things easier on yourself. You can add short HIIT(cardio) once or twice a week, drop the long grueling cardio training, strength train a couple times a week for under 30 minutes, and be a lot happier and successful long term. What's easier on your mind to eat back, 250 or 500 calories? What sounds better, 2-3(it could even be much less)hours of your time to exercise, or 7+?

spackham

Bump this. Best message EVER!!!! I have been trying to figure this out!!!