"Eating back your calories"- A New Approach

CallmeSbo

bump

PaleoPath4Lyfe

I read a lot of posts about "eating back your calories" and would like to suggest an alternate view for those that find that way of thinking difficult to understand.

Weight-loss (or -gain) is CUMULATIVE. What we eat today affects us today, tomorrow, and beyond. Just as the exercise/activities we do have on-going effects. While counting calories is effective (especially for those just beginning a weight-loss regimen or first trying to change eating habits) - it can be misleading to rely solely on the QUANTITY of calories. My suggestion may be easier said than done for some, but here it is: try to stop thinking about calories in vs. calories out on a daily basis, and think more long-term.

One pound = 3500 calories. If you manage to just create a deficit of 500 calories a day, you will lose 1 pound within a week (500 calories X 7 days). How are caloric deficits created? 1. By eating less. 2. By exercising more. 3. Through the thermogenic properties of foods (they require energy to digest and use). Most of you are using a combination of all three of these ways!

If you're being active and eating healthy (mostly fresh, raw foods = high QUALITY calories) and drinking lots of water, your body will do the work it's supposed to do. If you exercise and feel hungry after a workout, it's because your body has expended all the ready energy in your bloodstream, thus decreasing the amount of insulin in your blood...resulting in hunger. You need to keep fueling your body when it needs it!

Think of your metabolism like a campfire. If you put 2 or 3 giant logs on the fire, it dampens down and doesn't burn as brightly or as hot. (Think of this as 2-3 large meals or poor-QUALITY calories.) If you instead put a couple of medium-sized branches and more twigs and kindling, your campfire burns hotter, brighter and faster. (Think of medium-sized branches as lean protein; and twigs/kindling as complex-carbohydrates.) The campfire burns through the smaller wood very quickly, requiring more of it to keep burning at that rate!

Keep "stoking" that metabolic fire, my friends! Feed your body frequent, high-QUALITY calories and use exercise to train your metabolism to burn faster.

Feel free to add me as a friend. I'm a nutritionist, exercise coach and wellness counselor and am always eager to learn more and to meet new people - each of whom present new and interesting challenges!

Most, not all of what you said is out-dated, conventional wisdom thinking.

Your metabolism does not need to be stoked. There is no need for breakfast. And I, like you, have education in nutrition and holistic wellness.

TexNut

The original post was written with the intent of helping those that are frozen with fear over whether or not to "eat back their exercise calories" by emphasizing the big picture, and the CUMULATIVE effects of their positive actions (not to argue starvation diets).

It is easy to read an OP and pick it apart (but I like to post anyway!). And it's difficult to succinctly say everything there is to say on this matter in one post (or even an entire thread). But I stand by my reference to 'stoking your metabolism', though the wording may ruffle some feathers. It's pretty simple, though others might like to complicate things:

Eat good fuel. Burn that fuel by remaining active throughout the day. Eat more good fuel as needed.

The more active you are, the more you'll burn. (I hope we can at least all agree on that, as a generality!) And I, for one, know I have more energy, am more active and therefore require more fuel when I start my day with a healthy breakfast. On days I don't eat breakfast, I actually feel a lower internal body temp and have less energy overall. If I hadn't had the personal experience of seeing this work for tons of people, I might be inclined to let you disuade me! (But then again, I'm a sucker for "conventional wisdom" - i.e. seeing the proof for yourself!)

UponThisRock

If I hadn't had the personal experience of seeing this work for tons of people, I might be inclined to let you disuade me! (But then again, I'm a sucker for "conventional wisdom" - i.e. seeing the proof for yourself!)

So the science doesn't matter to you?

MikeSEA

The original post was written with the intent of helping those that are frozen with fear over whether or not to "eat back their exercise calories" by emphasizing the big picture, and the CUMULATIVE effects of their positive actions (not to argue starvation diets).

I don't know that anyone disputes your intent. I don't think anyone said anything similar to, "You know you're lying, and you should be ashamed of yourself for deliberately spreading falsehoods."

Here's something I'd like to bring up, though. It doesn't actually matter whether or not someone thinks they're eating back the calories they just burned or not. They burned calories through exercise (probably using glycogen from yesterday's food intake), and if they eat afterwards, they'll be adding more calories to their system for future use. Drawing the distinction you seem to want to doesn't seem all that useful. Really all your advocating is that staying active to maintain a deficit is a good thing if you're trying to lose weight. No argument here. Counting calories can be a part of that without a problem. It's like saying you can't count balance a checkbook because the penny I withdraw isn't the exact coin I deposited.

It is easy to read an OP and pick it apart (but I like to post anyway!). And it's difficult to succinctly say everything there is to say on this matter in one post (or even an entire thread). But I stand by my reference to 'stoking your metabolism', though the wording may ruffle some feathers. It's pretty simple, though others might like to complicate things:

Eat good fuel. Burn that fuel by remaining active throughout the day. Eat more good fuel as needed.

What you're saying is reasonable, though not rational. You believe your own experience as well as the experience counts as evidence of some metabolic effect of breakfast and smaller meals (I presume). It doesn't actually count as that kind of evidence. It's great that the people you work with have had success,but it could be for a number of reason. Again, I don't have a problem if want to eat breakfast and it may even help them lose weight for a number of reasons....research suggests it has nothing to do with metabolism. The "why" of things actually matters to me quite a bit, which is the reason I bring it up.

The more active you are, the more you'll burn. (I hope we can at least all agree on that, as a generality!) And I, for one, know I have more energy, am more active and therefore require more fuel when I start my day with a healthy breakfast. On days I don't eat breakfast, I actually feel a lower internal body temp and have less energy overall. If I hadn't had the personal experience of seeing this work for tons of people, I might be inclined to let you disuade me! (But then again, I'm a sucker for "conventional wisdom" - i.e. seeing the proof for yourself!)

Again, no one's saying eating breakfast can't help someone lose weight. We're saying that research suggests it doesn't really have anything to do with metabolism. Obviously no one can come back and say "No, I know for a fact that you don't feel the way you say you do when you eat breakfast." In much the same that you feel great eating breakfast, I feel miserable. Lots of people I know are like that. What conclusion are we supposed to draw? This is why anecdotal evidence is highly limited.

By all means, recommend people eat breakfast and smaller meals. If nothing else it provides structure and may help with satiety, but don't claim the authority of science just because the fitness industry has spent the last 15 years using a message that sounds reasonable, but doesn't actually hold up under scrutiny.

dardar14701

i have only been using this a week or so and i am doing good, but everyday i am too hgh in sugar but I am not worried about that cause my sugar is fine. i have been drinking apple juice to get the potassium cause i have a low potassium level and i dont like bananas. any suggestions on something with high potassium that would be lower in sugar. i know potatoes have a lot of potassium too but too many carbs to eat those alot.

JennieAL

i have only been using this a week or so and i am doing good, but everyday i am too hgh in sugar but I am not worried about that cause my sugar is fine. i have been drinking apple juice to get the potassium cause i have a low potassium level and i dont like bananas. any suggestions on something with high potassium that would be lower in sugar. i know potatoes have a lot of potassium too but too many carbs to eat those alot.

Google foods high in potassium. I remember avocados and beans ranking pretty high on the list.

Also, drinking your calories is not the best way to go about things if you're aiming for weight loss. You may not be trying to to lose, but I just wanted to mention that.

Huffdogg

i have only been using this a week or so and i am doing good, but everyday i am too hgh in sugar but I am not worried about that cause my sugar is fine. i have been drinking apple juice to get the potassium cause i have a low potassium level and i dont like bananas. any suggestions on something with high potassium that would be lower in sugar. i know potatoes have a lot of potassium too but too many carbs to eat those alot.

Spinach is about the be-all, end-all of potassium bombs. And JennieAL is absolutely right; fruit juices are not the way to get your nutrients. FWIW, almost all meats are high in potassium, also. Here endeth the threadjack.

AntWrig

I read a lot of posts about "eating back your calories" and would like to suggest an alternate view for those that find that way of thinking difficult to understand.

Weight-loss (or -gain) is CUMULATIVE. What we eat today affects us today, tomorrow, and beyond. Just as the exercise/activities we do have on-going effects. While counting calories is effective (especially for those just beginning a weight-loss regimen or first trying to change eating habits) - it can be misleading to rely solely on the QUANTITY of calories. My suggestion may be easier said than done for some, but here it is: try to stop thinking about calories in vs. calories out on a daily basis, and think more long-term.

One pound = 3500 calories. If you manage to just create a deficit of 500 calories a day, you will lose 1 pound within a week (500 calories X 7 days). How are caloric deficits created? 1. By eating less. 2. By exercising more. 3. Through the thermogenic properties of foods (they require energy to digest and use). Most of you are using a combination of all three of these ways!

If you're being active and eating healthy (mostly fresh, raw foods = high QUALITY calories) and drinking lots of water, your body will do the work it's supposed to do. If you exercise and feel hungry after a workout, it's because your body has expended all the ready energy in your bloodstream, thus decreasing the amount of insulin in your blood...resulting in hunger. You need to keep fueling your body when it needs it!

Think of your metabolism like a campfire. If you put 2 or 3 giant logs on the fire, it dampens down and doesn't burn as brightly or as hot. (Think of this as 2-3 large meals or poor-QUALITY calories.) If you instead put a couple of medium-sized branches and more twigs and kindling, your campfire burns hotter, brighter and faster. (Think of medium-sized branches as lean protein; and twigs/kindling as complex-carbohydrates.) The campfire burns through the smaller wood very quickly, requiring more of it to keep burning at that rate!

Keep "stoking" that metabolic fire, my friends! Feed your body frequent, high-QUALITY calories and use exercise to train your metabolism to burn faster.

Feel free to add me as a friend. I'm a nutritionist, exercise coach and wellness counselor and am always eager to learn more and to meet new people - each of whom present new and interesting challenges!

Just a different spin on misinformation.