Question regarding Calories gained.

MacMadame

Also - the theory that that would only happen when you eat 50% or less of what you need to maintain is flawed, because if you are exercising hard, your body needs more calories. So that 50% in your example may be 1500 calories - which you would deem as overeating, but would be "starvation"

It's not a theory. It's a clinical definition. A starvation diet is defined as 50% or less of the calories you need to maintain. It's not up for debate really. That's the standard definition that is used in clinical research on the topic.

Which in my example was 1000 which is 50% of 2000.... 1500 for getting through the day and 500 for that day's exercise.

I didn't say 1500 was overeating either. I just said it wasn't a starvation diet. Overeating in my example would be anything over 2000.

P.S. I think this whole site is based on "a free place to log my food and a forum to talk to other people who are interested in weight loss and nutrition". :laugh: There is no law that says you can't use the site if you don't subscribe to the "eat your exercise calories" philosophy of weight loss.

MTGirl

Also - the theory that that would only happen when you eat 50% or less of what you need to maintain is flawed, because if you are exercising hard, your body needs more calories. So that 50% in your example may be 1500 calories - which you would deem as overeating, but would be "starvation"

It's not a theory. It's a clinical definition. A starvation diet is defined as 50% or less of the calories you need to maintain. It's not up for debate really. That's the standard definition that is used in clinical research on the topic.

Which in my example was 1000 which is 50% of 2000.... 1500 for getting through the day and 500 for that day's exercise.

I didn't say 1500 was overeating either. I just said it wasn't a starvation diet. Overeating in my example would be anything over 2000.

P.S. I think this whole site is based on "a free place to log my food and a forum to talk to other people who are interested in weight loss and nutrition". :laugh: There is no law that says you can't use the site if you don't subscribe to the "eat your exercise calories" philosophy of weight loss.

You are correct MacM - this is a place to log food and talk to other people, And the premise of this site is that you eat back your exercise calories - but if you look at my original response - I said "try it the way it is set up, they reduce if it doesn't work and keep trying." My only real objection to your stance MacM is that you are so vehement that it is a myth that that will work. That is my argument with you. I have in the past acknowledged that your method has worked for you, and other. So has the basic way this site is set up. Worked for a lot. I have always spoken for different approaches - what works for you. You seem to be stuck in the "eating back your exercise calories is ridiculous" frame of mind. That's all. I actually like you and think your progress is amazing. I just don't care for the "that way won't work" thing.

MacMadame

I think you are misunderstanding what I am vehement about. I'm vehement that people don't go into starvation mode at the drop of a hat and/or if they don't eat their exercise calories. There is clinical data to support my position and that is part of what frustrates me when I see people repeating the myth that "if you don't eat enough, you'll go into starvation mode and not lose weight".

That is scienfically inaccurate and that is what the myth is. I'm not saying it's a myth that you should eat your exercise calories. I'm saying it's a myth that not eating them puts you in starvation mode and it's a myth that people in starvation mode don't lose weight.

The other problem I have with this response to every "I'm not losing weight" thread is that it's been documented over and over that people under-report their eating and over-report their exercise. Plus, most of the formulas I see online completely over-estimate how many calories many activities burn and often over-estimate what a person's BMR is.

So then you get someone who is eating 1500-2000 calories a day who says they aren't losing weight and the immediate response is: you must not be eating enough -- you are in starvation mode! That is what I find to be ridiculous. These people aren't on a starvation diet -- the amount of food they are eating is nowhere near a starvation diet, in fact -- and they have plenty of body fat, so they aren't in "starvation mode" at all.

It is much more likely that the person is not losing weight because they are eating more calories than they are actually burning due to mistakes in reporting and imperfect formulas. Therefore, the advice to eat *even more* calories is just going to make their situation worse.

LostinCali

Or I could log them on my diary and eat them for you.:laugh:

HAHAHA

I've seen a lot of good points on both sides of this argument in the short time I've been here. I play it safe and eat some of mine and have lost inches.

weaverc

I always eat all the exercise calories I get, but I am still struggling to lose weight at the rate that I would like to (I want to lose 1-1 1/2lbs. a week and am losing about 1 a month). I was thinking of eating only half my exercise calories to see if that works better for me.

MTGirl

I always eat all the exercise calories I get, but I am still struggling to lose weight at the rate that I would like to (I want to lose 1-1 1/2lbs. a week and am losing about 1 a month). I was thinking of eating only half my exercise calories to see if that works better for me.

Give that a try and see if it doesn't help. Sometimes we have to fiddle with the system!

MTGirl

I think you are misunderstanding what I am vehement about. I'm vehement that people don't go into starvation mode at the drop of a hat and/or if they don't eat their exercise calories. There is clinical data to support my position and that is part of what frustrates me when I see people repeating the myth that "if you don't eat enough, you'll go into starvation mode and not lose weight".

That is scienfically inaccurate and that is what the myth is. I'm not saying it's a myth that you should eat your exercise calories. I'm saying it's a myth that not eating them puts you in starvation mode and it's a myth that people in starvation mode don't lose weight.

The other problem I have with this response to every "I'm not losing weight" thread is that it's been documented over and over that people under-report their eating and over-report their exercise. Plus, most of the formulas I see online completely over-estimate how many calories many activities burn and often over-estimate what a person's BMR is.

So then you get someone who is eating 1500-2000 calories a day who says they aren't losing weight and the immediate response is: you must not be eating enough -- you are in starvation mode! That is what I find to be ridiculous. These people aren't on a starvation diet -- the amount of food they are eating is nowhere near a starvation diet, in fact -- and they have plenty of body fat, so they aren't in "starvation mode" at all.

It is much more likely that the person is not losing weight because they are eating more calories than they are actually burning due to mistakes in reporting and imperfect formulas. Therefore, the advice to eat *even more* calories is just going to make their situation worse.

Your response is part of why I don't use that term any more. I use the term "slowed metabolism due to underfueling" If that is a better term for you - maybe in your head replace "starvation mode" with that phrase - because that is what most people who say "starvation mode" mean. And yes, that can happen rather quickly. There are a lot of testimonials on here about people eating 1200 or 1300 calories and not losing weight, or even 1400 or 1500 if they are bigger, and not losing weight. But when they added back in some or all of their exercise calories, they lost regularly and well. I just think that the way some of your responses are worded rankle a little. Have a nice day - week - year - life! :flowerforyou: