Question regarding Calories gained.

MacMadame

Hi tig3rang31 as you can see I joined today and as far as I knew you go into starvation mode when you dont consume enough calories.

This is a common dieting mythology based on some studies, but often based on a misunderstanding of them.

First of all, a starvation diet is when you eat 50% (or less) of the calories you need to maintain. It's not just not eating your exercise calories. For example, if your maintenance calories should be 1500 and you burn an extra 500 working out hard, then a starvation diet would be eating 1000 calories or less. It's not eating 1500 or even 1200.

Secondly, while dieting does slow down your metabolism, it does it even if your deficit is quite small. So you can't stop that. It is true if you engage in *drastic* calorie reduction, you will get to a point of diminishing returns. For example, let's say eating 1500 calories would have you losing 1 pound a week. If you cut down to 1000 calories, you will probably lose 2 pounds a week. But you may only lose 1.75 pounds. So, more than with 1500 calories but not as much as you'd expect. Then, if you go nuts and drop down to 500, you will definitely NOT lose 3 lb. a week. It could be as little as 2.25. Which means you are suffering greatly and risking your health for a .25 to .5 extra loss a week. That's crazy IMO!

As for your body going into "starvation mode" and "hanging on" to every calorie, in some famous studies of starvation, they did find this happened. But it didn't happen until the subjects had gotten down to 5% body fat! Plus, even at that extremely low body weight, they *still* were losing weight. But most of us are no where near that point. We're experiencing some slow down of metabolism, but only enough to have diminishing returns, not enough that our bodies are canabalizing themselves.

So why do people find they lose more weight when they eat more? Because humans are not machines. Often they under-report what they eat and over-report their exercise. They also tend to slow themselves down if they aren't fueling enough and often aren't even aware of it.

The bottom line is that you need to eat enough to fuel your body and have the energy to engage in your daily activities. If you are draggy and tired, you will start doing things that cause you to burn less calories including not pushing yourself in your workouts, sleeping more, sitting more, etc. If it gets extreme, it can slow down your weight loss. Sometimes upping your calories as little as 100 a day is enough to give you the energy to kick start your activities and that will pay dividends on the scale.

But you need to be careful. A lot of people use "starvation mode" as an excuse to eat more. And, just like with eating less, there is a point of diminishing returns. After all, it's not like you can up your calories indefinitely and continue to lose weight. At some point, you will be eating more than you consume just like before you started trying to lose weight.

MTGirl

Again, I would argue MacM, that it is not a "common dieting mythology". This whole site is based on that "mythology". Maybe the term starvation mode is what gets you - really what it indicates is that your metabolism slows down due to being underfueled.

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"

To the original poster - at least give the system as it is set up a try. It has a build in defecit based on what you put in when you signed up. You probably won't be able to eat 1100 calories extra in one day - but try for 1/2 anyway. Try it as it is set up, if after 3 - 4 weeks it doesn't work for you, then only eat 75% of your exercise calories back. Etc., until you find the level that works best for your body! Some people eat every single one of the calories they earn through exercise, some eat part, some eat none. You will find what works best - but if you aren't eating enough you will lose initially, but may stall out after 4 - 6 weeks as your body doesn't have the fuel it needs.

Good luck and enjoy your journey!

JoyousMaximus

I don't even log my exercise. I never have. It wasn't until I started useing this site that even heard the notion of eating your exercise calories. I doubt the average exerciser needs to increase their food intake to account for excerise. If you are exercising with extreme intensity, then you should probably increase you caloric intake, but, if you're only exercising 1/2 hr to hour everyday or every other day, its probably not important. The most important thing is to listen to your body. Eveyone is different. If you have an intense work out and you feel hungry, eat. If not, don't.

molsongirl

Holy crap, I probably shouldn't even poke this one, whatever you choose to do, make sure that you're not eating..just to eat, because you see all these extra calories, be hungry., then make a healthy choice. :happy:

JoyousMaximus

Also, MTGirl, I believe that McMadame included excercise calories in her 50% calculation with the statement "For example, if your maintenance calories should be 1500 and you burn an extra 500 working out hard, then a starvation diet would be eating 1000 calories or less" as 50% of 1500 is only 750 where as 1000 is 50% of 2000 (the sum of maintenance calories and exercise calories).. Just thought I would clarify.

MTGirl

Uh, no jbuerer. Maintenance calories doesn't include exercise calories. And we've had this discussion (MacM and I) before. Thanks for trying to clarify though. And, just because you've never heard of something before doesn't mean it is without merit. It is the basic premise of this site. You are free to have your opinion about it, but it is what this site is based on. You get a basic allotment of calories, with a deficit built in to allow you to lose 1 or 2 lbs per week. Any calories you burn exercising you get to eat back. Now that doesn't work for everyone - we all have different metabolisms. But it, in general, is good science and will work for most people.

2joe2

CSW,
It sounds like you're very active if you're doing 18 miles on a bike, so you probably need the extra calories. It really all depends on your workout routine. I'm doing P90x and the nutrition plan is designed so you eat most, if not all, of your "gained" calories. I'm about 3/4 of the way through the first cycle and have eaten everything they say to eat and have dropped only about 4 pounds but dropped my body fat % by 5 points. That's a big change (dropped 3 pant sizes). The P90x materials say that the extra calories actually help you reduce your body fat and continue to build lean muscle mass since the extra fuel gives the energy to work out with more intensity. All I know is that it's working for me. I'm sure you've heard the stories of Michael Phelps eating 12,000 calories per day because he was burning about 5,000 per day in the pool and his metabolism was incredibly high. Hope Phelps is not still eating that much. Bong hits and pancakes will do some serious damage to his physique :laugh:

Good luck.

Joe

MisoSoup79

I wear a HRM and eat back what I burn. I found that when I wasn't eating enough, I was kind of cranky and the scale wouldn't budge. :flowerforyou:

MTGirl

I wear a HRM and eat back what I burn. I found that when I wasn't eating enough, I was kind of cranky and the scale wouldn't budge. :flowerforyou:

OT - Miso I love that flower pot your holding. I want one so bad. Someday!! :happy:

JoyousMaximus

And, just because you've never heard of something before doesn't mean it is without merit. It is the basic premise of this site. You are free to have your opinion about it, but it is what this site is based on. You get a basic allotment of calories, with a deficit built in to allow you to lose 1 or 2 lbs per week. Any calories you burn exercising you get to eat back. Now that doesn't work for everyone - we all have different metabolisms. But it, in general, is good science and will work for most people.

I didn't mean the statement that I had never heard it before to mean that it had no merit. If it works for you, it works. I also don't think that it is a necessity as if it was I believe that I would have read about it at sometime in an article in a health magazine, my personal trainer would have meantioned it to me, or it would have been mentioned in one of the fitness/nutrition classes I've taken. I've tried to find something that has a definative yes/no answer but I can't which leads me to believe there is no correct answer.

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: