Do I have to eat my exercise calories?

Options
2»

Replies

  • proats
    proats Posts: 35 Member
    Options
    i am a medical student, and the following is what i hav learned. technically, can can eat only around 1200-1300 kcal and u will not harm ur body, even if you are working out. if you eat below 1200 kcal u will cause ur body to go into starvation mode, and thus ur metabolism will slow down. that being said, most people crave more calories when they are working out consistently. if you are still hungry after eating the 1200-1300 kcal on a day when u hav worked out, make sure u eat more food, especially protein. this will keep ur metabolism high and ensure weight loss success. keeping urself hungry will cause ur body to operate in starvation mode and actually slow ur weight loss efforts. hope that helps

    "Starvation Mode" is a myth.

    Also, there is no such thing as "keeping your metabolism high: by eating frequently. Both of those have been scientifically disproven. Here is some literature on the subject:


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413096
    This study compares 1 meal/d to 3 meal/d. In the experiment, subjects who only consumed 1 meal/d saw a decrease in fat mass, and the hormone cortisol.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8...ubmed_RVDocSum
    This shows no difference on the effects of 2 meals/d compared to 5 meals/d on DIT (diet induced- thermogenesis), BMR, and Energy Expenditure. Meaning, the 5 meals/d did not increase the metabolic rate.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
    This study shows there was no difference in weight loss between subjects with high/low meal frequencies.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
    Evidence supports that meal frequency has nothing to do with energy in the subjects.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11319656
    Yet again, no difference in energy in the subjects compared to 2 meals/d to 6 meals/d.


    Basically, the only thing that matters in terms of fat loss is taking in less calories than you expand. Thats all there is to it. Meal frequency plays no part in it.
  • taso42_DELETED
    taso42_DELETED Posts: 3,394 Member
    Options
    i am a medical student, and the following is what i hav learned. technically, can can eat only around 1200-1300 kcal and u will not harm ur body, even if you are working out. if you eat below 1200 kcal u will cause ur body to go into starvation mode, and thus ur metabolism will slow down. that being said, most people crave more calories when they are working out consistently. if you are still hungry after eating the 1200-1300 kcal on a day when u hav worked out, make sure u eat more food, especially protein. this will keep ur metabolism high and ensure weight loss success. keeping urself hungry will cause ur body to operate in starvation mode and actually slow ur weight loss efforts. hope that helps

    "Starvation Mode" is a myth.

    Also, there is no such thing as "keeping your metabolism high: by eating frequently. Both of those have been scientifically disproven. Here is some literature on the subject:


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413096
    This study compares 1 meal/d to 3 meal/d. In the experiment, subjects who only consumed 1 meal/d saw a decrease in fat mass, and the hormone cortisol.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8...ubmed_RVDocSum
    This shows no difference on the effects of 2 meals/d compared to 5 meals/d on DIT (diet induced- thermogenesis), BMR, and Energy Expenditure. Meaning, the 5 meals/d did not increase the metabolic rate.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
    This study shows there was no difference in weight loss between subjects with high/low meal frequencies.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
    Evidence supports that meal frequency has nothing to do with energy in the subjects.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11319656
    Yet again, no difference in energy in the subjects compared to 2 meals/d to 6 meals/d.


    Basically, the only thing that matters in terms of fat loss is taking in less calories than you expand. Thats all there is to it. Meal frequency plays no part in it.

    These studies dispute meal timing, and I'm sold - meal timing is not too important..

    How do you conclude "starvation mode is a myth" from that? Look into Adaptive Thermogenesis...
  • proats
    proats Posts: 35 Member
    Options

    These studies dispute meal timing, and I'm sold - meal timing is not too important..

    How do you conclude "starvation mode is a myth" from that? Look into Adaptive Thermogenesis...

    Those studies deal with meal timing.

    What I was saying about Starvation Mode was in reference to the OP's worries about being in starvation mode. Honestly, the whole idea of a starvation mode is kinda contraversial. You metabolic rate will decrease more as you create a higher deficit due to an increase in exercise. Actually, women tend to see the biggest drop.

    What I was saying is that I have never seen a study where the actual metabolic drop can't just be explained by the massive drop in caloric deficiency created. Bsically, that all metabolic "slowing" is explained by a caloric deficiency, not by some phantom force that only kicks in after a certain calorie number is reached. Hope I am explaining that right.

Categories