Obese vs Overweight

UsedToBeHusky

So I am constantly in the forums debating the safety of NOT eating back your exercise calories. I am not going to do that anymore. Most people do not/will not/can not see any way other than what they think is right. (Of course, their opinions will change when the next study comes out.) Anyway... I realize that I defend this method because it works for me. It works for me because I am obese. When I started this program, I had to lose just 30 lbs shy of half my weight. I was 309 lbs!!!

Of course, now it is getting much harder to burn calories. I am only 30 lbs away from being just overweight. This whole time I have listened to my body about my calorie intake and only ate when I was hungry. I have noticed that the script has now flipped. My body desires those exercise calories and then some. The closer I get to my ideal weight, the more that I need those exercise calories.

So, since I am no longer going to pursue the exercise calories debate, I will end on this final note...

If you are obese, you do not have to eat your exercise calories unless you are hungry. As your body uses up its fat stores, however, you body will become more dependent on food energy, and eating back exercise calories may become necessary.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a doctor, nutritionist, or trainer. However, I have gleaned this information from all of the above. This method has worked for me because of my particular situation. Were my circumstances different, this might not have worked as well.

Best of luck to you all in your individual journeys!!

mrb_9110

That's actually a very logical way to put it and I tend to agree with you.

Megan2Project

EXACTLY! Well that's exactly what I believe... For now, I eat them sometimes, not often, and not usually very much of them... BUT I also believe that I may need to eat some/all as I get smaller and my body wants to hold on to more, but for now (at 263) I've got plenty to spare

Phroggygirl1

I totally agree!! I try to rarely eat back my exercise calories.

goertzel

The first the rule:
Calories output (metabolism, exercise) - Calories input (food/drink) equal to 3500 is a pound of weight lost.

The ratio of muscle to fat lost changes with the amount you exercise. Without exercise your body will burn both muscle and fat which will bring down your metabolism over time. Think about a starving person from famine - no muscle tone or fat. Compare that image with an athlete who eats and burns 1000s of calories a day and has a very low body fat.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieting (see fat loss vs muscle loss)

splackk

I've gone through a very similar process myself. Although my starting weight wasn't as high, when I began I neither ate nor wanted to eat my extra exercise calories, I was losing well and had no problems. As I've gone down more and more I've found myself really wanting and needing those extra calories, feeling more tired and weak without them, and I've been adding more to my goals as the weeks pass. I'm actually eating about 300 MORE calories daily now than when I started losing weight, as well as most of my exercise calories, which of course has slowed down my progress, but when you're so much closer to the goal you can afford to go as slow as you'd like

KendaVSG

The first the rule:
Calories output (metabolism, exercise) - Calories input (food/drink) equal to 3500 is a pound of weight lost.

The ratio of muscle to fat lost changes with the amount you exercise. Without exercise your body will burn both muscle and fat which will bring down your metabolism over time. Think about a starving person from famine - no muscle tone or fat. Compare that image with an athlete who eats and burns 1000s of calories a day and has a very low body fat.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieting (see fat loss vs muscle loss)

If you want to utilize a source that is actually reputable and VALID, I would suggest NOT using Wikipedia for said source. It is neither empirical nor impartial. Find actual valid and empirical studies to quote when trying to tell someone what to do with their body.

UsedToBeHusky

The first the rule:
Calories output (metabolism, exercise) - Calories input (food/drink) equal to 3500 is a pound of weight lost.

The ratio of muscle to fat lost changes with the amount you exercise. Without exercise your body will burn both muscle and fat which will bring down your metabolism over time. Think about a starving person from famine - no muscle tone or fat. Compare that image with an athlete who eats and burns 1000s of calories a day and has a very low body fat.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieting (see fat loss vs muscle loss)

If you want to utilize a source that is actually reputable and VALID, I would suggest NOT using Wikipedia for said source. It is neither empirical nor impartial. Find actual valid and empirical studies to quote when trying to tell someone what to do with their body.

No this is actually true. But zigzagging your calories can allow you to achieve deep calorie deficits without the effects of starvation. No matter if you choose to eat back your exercise calories or not, you experience muscle loss. Proponents of eating back calories suggests that the method protects you from muscle loss, but that isn't true. Any time you are in a calorie deficit, the body draws upon stores of fat and muscle to draw energy. It is the activity that determines which the body is more dependent upon. It's some complicated science and math to figure out which activities drive the different ratios, but most people do not have to worry about this unless they lack fat stores (unlike obese people) or they lack lean muscle. Again, that is why I say that each individual must determine for themselves what is best for their own body. It is not right to make a blanket statement that everyone must do it the same way or it is not healthy. Statements like that are made for the weak-minded individual that would take the practice of limiting calorie intake or extended exercise too far. Believe it or not, those individuals are not as common as you think.