Whats the point to exercise then?

fatboypup

exercise does more than burn calories

kittyninja

Um... to have some muscle? Maybe? Just a thought.
You seem to think that the only positive effect of exercise is burning calories.

lucybell333

I exercise to be able to eat more, whilst still maintaining a reasonable deficit!! Toning the muscles, improving strength and fitness levels, etc - all secondary! :happy:

russellma

BECAUSE MFP IS DESIGNED SO YOU WILL LOSE THIS WEIGHT WITHOUT EXERCISE.

Yes, I shouted.

So when you DO exercise you need to add this back in to keep the same calorie deficit.

You tell MFP you want to lose 2 pounds a week. MFP sets your calorie goal to 1,200. This is low, the minimum amount for health. You burn 400 calories in exercise today, so now your Net cals is 800. NOT healthy. That is why you are supposed to eat back your calories on this plan.

If however you run your own numbers and decide that 1,600 calories is the appropriate number for you because 1,200 just is not enough, then don't eat your exercise calories back. 1,600 minus the 400 you exercised still keeps you in the healthy range, netting 1,200.

This is the reason I do. Well, that and I love to eat! :laugh:

When I didn't eat back my exercise calories, weight loss stalled. I upped my calories again and started losing. I look better, feel better and get to eat more!! Win-Win-Win!!!!

Pookylou

Um... to have some muscle? Maybe? Just a thought.
You seem to think that the only positive effect of exercise is burning calories.

This! I exercise to get fit and healthy, I eat better to lose weight, I never used to eat back my exercise calories and stalled losing, once I started eating them back I started loing again. (I now use a HRM so my burns are accurate!)

NatalieWinning

MFP sets you back 500 calories from what you need to maintain if you did no exercise. If you burn 500 calories you are now 1000 calories behind what you need to maintain. Thats when you are set to lose 2 lbs a week. Its around 200 calories if you are set to 1/2 pound a week. Still set less than you need to maintain the weight.

Do yourself a favor and eat them back. You will find you will lose more weight when you eat enough. If you do this long enough you will also find that when you eat too little you might not progress like you thought, lose muscle, and feel tired, plus maybe even gain some. The closer you get to goal, the more you need to eat and the slower the weight loss is. But that is the point where if you don't eat enough you will really not see much progress. At this point I switched to 1/2 lb loss a week and saw my plateau go away.

Now the muscle factor. When I don't exercise and build muscle I can only eat a little. When I have muscle mass I can eat 200 over maintence calories and still stay at goal. This means muscles not only make you look smoother like a spandex body suit, but you also can eat more if you have them. And to get muscle you have to eat enough calories to get them in the first place. Starvation reduces more muscle than fat. Google fat % calculators. That is a better estimate of if you are losing fat than the scale. And way more important than the scale. You want to lose fat. In fact my goal weight is at the middle or higher end of BMI, but it's at the low end of body fat %. I'm densely built. But not fat. Once I starved myself thin and was not healthy, I still had a higher body fat %, but was "thin". Not as good.

Mamaincali

I am glad I posted this question. I have been exercising so its not that I don't think I don't need it for my muscles or anything like that. I have noticed that there are a lot of people who think they should not eat back their exercise calories because they think they are defeating the purpose. For years I was told that the way to lose weight is to exercise. Well then exercise seems like a chore and everyone hates chores. Exercise takes on a whole new meaning when you are doing it because you want to for your health. I use a heart rate monitor when I exercise and since I am a bigger person I burn a lot of calories with just walking. Its hard to eat back all of those calories with healthy eating.

Thank you to everyone who replied with polite educational responses. That's why we are all here right? To support everyone on this journey and not making them feel stupid. I do still love that quote that exercise is to look good naked! Love it!

BaconMD

For years I was told that the way to lose weight is to exercise. Well then exercise seems like a chore and everyone hates chores. Exercise takes on a whole new meaning when you are doing it because you want to for your health.

For many people, exercising to lose weight IS doing it for health. That's why I did it. Certainly not looks - losing weight won't replace my face.

I lost I don't know how much weight before I started tracking my food intake. I had to be doing something right. But now that I'm doing both, I'm doing more right.

ninerbuff

I've been reading some people say eat back your exercise calories and some people say don't eat back your calories. I thought its supposed to be burn more, eat less to lose weight? If you eat back your exercise calories then why even exercise? That seems to defeat the purpose of exercise.

So that you can be fitter, have firmer muscles, raise your metabolic rate and do your body some good?
It may be that you don't understand the concept.
So let's hypothisize:

So let's say your MFP calorie setting is 1500 calories. That means that if you just met that goal you'd lose a pound a week. Now let's say you add in 300 calorie burn from exercise. Even if you ate back those 300, you'd still lose a pound a week. Let's say you don't. You can lose a little more weight for a short time, however stalls and plateaus are quicker and you will definitely NOT raise you Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR) if you keep it up. RMR burns more fat than any exercise you'll do in 2 hours.

Make more sense now?


A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

jskaggs1971

So let's hypothisize:

So let's say your MFP calorie setting is 1500 calories. That means that if you just met that goal you'd lose a pound a week. Now let's say you add in 300 calorie burn from exercise. Even if you ate back those 300, you'd still lose a pound a week. Let's say you don't. You can lose a little more weight for a short time, however stalls and plateaus are quicker and you will definitely NOT raise you Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR) if you keep it up. RMR burns more fat than any exercise you'll do in 2 hours.

Make more sense now?

These are all very good points. I do have a question, though. What are the components of RMR? I ask because hart rate is obviously a big part of metabolism. People who are in good cardiovascular shape tend to have a lower resting heart rate than they would in poor cardiovascular condition, leading one to assume that poor cardiovascular health = higher RMR. What am I missing?

Feel free to reply by PM if this is too off-topic for the thread.

gmrgirl

I *have* to eat back my exercise calories. I teach a minimum of 2 fitness classes a day. On Monday's I teach 4. It's a well known fact that students will only do about 50-70% of the effort they see you put in, so I have to go balls to the wall.

If I don't eat back my exercise calories, i'd be working in starvation. I burn between 600-800 calories per workout when starting a new routine and get between 800-1000 after we've been doing it for a few weeks. I lift weights three times a week.... this schedule could only maintain for so long before I hit a wall and did some serious damage. I need to eat as many of my exercise calories back as possible.

I don't get them all, but I do what I can...

And I exercise because I LOVE the way I feel after. i love the fact that I only need 2 inhalers now instead of 4. I love the community and the fun of the classes I teach (and I love the formats). Most of all, I exercise to prove to others they can reach their goals and they are not alone in this journey... not to lose weight.

I lift weights to prove to myself that I am stronger than I think I am. I raise the weights and lift heavy to show myself that no matter the burden, I can carry it and come out stronger for it... not to lose weight.

Losing weight is just a happy side effect of what I do to improve my health (mental and physical)

aippolito1

It provides oxygen to your muscles
It burns fat
It builds muscle
It makes you stronger
It gives you energy
It makes your bones stronger
It soothes achiness

Why would you NOT want to? I didn't work out this week for three days straight and my neck was aching, my back was stiff. As soon as I worked out again, I felt so much better. If you want to be skinny, don't exercise. If you want to be HEALTHY and FIT, exercise.

Kandygirl

Dieting helps you look good in clothing.

Exercise helps you look good naked.

best comment ever. its so true.

Karmarie24

.

Karmarie24

So let's hypothisize:

So let's say your MFP calorie setting is 1500 calories. That means that if you just met that goal you'd lose a pound a week. Now let's say you add in 300 calorie burn from exercise. Even if you ate back those 300, you'd still lose a pound a week. Let's say you don't. You can lose a little more weight for a short time, however stalls and plateaus are quicker and you will definitely NOT raise you Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR) if you keep it up. RMR burns more fat than any exercise you'll do in 2 hours.

Make more sense now?

These are all very good points. I do have a question, though. What are the components of RMR? I ask because hart rate is obviously a big part of metabolism. People who are in good cardiovascular shape tend to have a lower resting heart rate than they would in poor cardiovascular condition, leading one to assume that poor cardiovascular health = higher RMR. What am I missing?

Feel free to reply by PM if this is too off-topic for the thread.

I'd love to know that too! I have a really low resting heart rate (35-40 bpm) due to distance running for the past 3 years. I often wondering if I'm ever going to lose this last 10-15 lbs even though I burn 5000+ calories per week!

(I meant to quote, sorry!)

ohnuts14

I don't know how I feel about eating my calories back either, but here's why it can't hurt; the calorie goal that myfitnesspal gives you, is the amount of calories you should eat in order to lose weight, from diet alone. If you wanted to only maintain, myfitnesspal would give you a MUCH higher calorie goal. For example; I want to lose 2 lbs a week, so my calorie goal is 1610. When I changed that goal to 1.5 lbs a week, my calorie goal became 1860, because that's how much I would need to eat in order to lose 1.5 lbs a week as opposed to 2. So see, if you burn, say... 500 calories, and your calorie goal is 1600, and lets say you ate your 1600 calories already. You have now depleted your body of 500 calories. So you can eat 500 back, to bring you back up to a total of 1600. Therefore, if your goal is to lose 2 lbs a week, you'll still lose 2 lbs a week.

So if you DON'T eat your exercise calories back, it would stand to reason you would lose weight faster. So if your goal is to lose 2 lbs a week, and your calorie goal is 1600, and everyday you burn 500 calories WITHOUT eating it back, you'll lose MORE than 2 lbs a week. At least at first, and that's the concern about not eating your exercise calories back; your body needs to maintain a certain amount of calories. Your metabolism uses calories as fuel, and if your metabolism isn't being provided with enough calories to burn, it will eventually slow down, and usually sooner rather than later. So you COULD lose faster if you DON'T eat your exercise calories back, but it won't be long before your metabolism starts slowing down as it's not being provided with sufficient fuel. That's very often the cause of frequent plateaus.

I hope that made sense, and I hope that helped. I'm not the best at explaining things. I personally only like to eat half my exercise calories back because I never feel hungry enough to eat it ALL back. To a point, I think eating some of the exercise calories back is a good thing, however, I also believe in listening to my body. I'll eat extra if I work out but I'm not going to force myself to eat more if I don't feel hungry. Anyway, none of this is an exact science, find what works for you.

ninerbuff

These are all very good points. I do have a question, though. What are the components of RMR? I ask because hart rate is obviously a big part of metabolism. People who are in good cardiovascular shape tend to have a lower resting heart rate than they would in poor cardiovascular condition, leading one to assume that poor cardiovascular health = higher RMR. What am I missing?

Feel free to reply by PM if this is too off-topic for the thread.

Resting Heart Rate (RHR) equates to your fitness level. RMR is your Resting Metabolic Rate which it the rate that your body will burn calories at rest. A higher heart rate does not always mean a higher RMR. There are many people who are unfit that have high heart rates. However many body builders have bad cardiovascular health, but good RMR's because of all the muscle they have.
So there are many factors that play into it, but if you are strength training and doing cardio, chances are RMR and RHR are better than the average person.

A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

ninerbuff

I'd love to know that too! I have a really low resting heart rate (35-40 bpm) due to distance running for the past 3 years. I often wondering if I'm ever going to lose this last 10-15 lbs even though I burn 5000+ calories per week!

(I meant to quote, sorry!)

Endurance athletes have lower RHR, but their RMR's aren't as high because of lower lean muscle tissue. Endurance training usually catabolizes lean muscle and that intern lowers RMR.


A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

wellbert

Diet to lose weight
exercise to get strong and healthy

NatalieWinning

I am glad I posted this question. I have been exercising so its not that I don't think I don't need it for my muscles or anything like that. I have noticed that there are a lot of people who think they should not eat back their exercise calories because they think they are defeating the purpose. For years I was told that the way to lose weight is to exercise. Well then exercise seems like a chore and everyone hates chores. Exercise takes on a whole new meaning when you are doing it because you want to for your health. I use a heart rate monitor when I exercise and since I am a bigger person I burn a lot of calories with just walking. Its hard to eat back all of those calories with healthy eating.

Thank you to everyone who replied with polite educational responses. That's why we are all here right? To support everyone on this journey and not making them feel stupid. I do still love that quote that exercise is to look good naked! Love it!

Most of the work of reducing your weight and size is how you eat, and how much you eat. Exercise is the icing on the cake of looking good, feeling good, being healthier, avoiding disease, and being able to eat more of things you like.