eating back excersise calories doesnt work for me :(

susannamarie

\Ok so the explanation for my diary is is that I am half using calorie counting and using the weight watchers method. So the reason why I have a lot of blank space is because they are the fruits and veg I eat. I eat fruit for breakfast and then through out the day but not all at once only if I feel hungry. Then I eat my dinner which consists of60g of dry white rice, vegan meat pieces and veg. I have this everyday though.

This could be a reason why you're not losing weight -- the calories in fruit really can add up, and you shouldn't mix and match methods. I would guess that you're (unknowingly) eating your exercise calories back in untracked fruit, so when you *try* to eat them back without tracking fruit, you're going over.

susannamarie

This whole "eating back" thing seems to be a localised nonsense mainly on this site.

If you eat more because you've exercised then you've reduced your calorie deficit. That may be fine, or it may mean you lose weight more slowly. I see countless posts "I'm exercising doing blah blah and not losing weight".

Someone eating 800 or 1000 calories a day will not see their metabolism stop or shutdown or the other silly phrases bandied about. They will see their body use the massive energy stores present as fat to fuel their metabolism. That's the whole point of trying to lose fat weight - you create a situation where the reserves are used to keep you going in the absence of or with a deficit of food intake.

Find me a clinical trial with subjects on less than 1,000 calories where even one of them fails to lose weight ! I won't be holding my breath.

The reason it's on *this* site is because this site doesn't say "Oh, you plan to exercise 3x/week? Here, let me give you some calories to cover that", but rather, increases the calories *after* you actually DO it. This has the bonus that if you have a crappy week and miss exercising, you're not over your base. If you don't like it, set your activity level to cover your exercise and then don't track the exercise.

And um, yes, of course people will lose weight on fewer than 1000 calories/day. They'll also lose muscle mass at a higher rate. They won't see their metabolism *stop* -- that's silly. But it will reduce.

psuLemon

I'm not a big fan of eating them all back, I've found it does not work for me. However...what you might want to do is just go day by day. If you are really hungry one day, eat 60% of them back. If you have eaten, and are not hungry, then don't eat them back that day. If you are not using a HRM, and going by MFP or machine calories, it's quite common for those to be overestimated. So, that could be where the problem is happening. Especially if you have been eating them "all" back. Perhaps, the exercise calories are overestimated. Mix that with small amounts of underestimations on calories (which can happen even when measuring, because weighing foods is more accurate); and you would get the = no weight loss.

I have not had any problems losing by eating 10-60% of them back. Give it a try. Not all of us are so lucky to be able to eat 100% of them back. Don't however, deprive, your body. If you are hungry. Eat them back. Just having a few days where you don't eat them back completely might help move things along.

I don't use a HRM and I have cut 6% body fat and lost 16 lbs (although, I intentionally gained 10 lb back so I can have more lean body mass). There are methods/calculations that I can show you that will prevent the chasing of calories, improve your energy to work out harder and cut fat and weight while maintaining lean muscle mass. I have done it with well over 100 people with over a 97% success rate. The 3% that didn't work were people who didn't listen the plan and one had a medical issue that prevented me from figuring out the variables.

Also, I know Eric and I both suggest that if MFP is calculating your exercise calories, that you only eat 50-75% of them. So keep in mind, that calorie count is a lot of trial and error. So if you eat them all back and don't lose after a month, cut it back to 80%. Or you might have to figure out if you are eating enough in the first place. Too many people over extend their bodies where it maintains weight. For example, you can lose 2lbs per week if you only have 20 lbs to lose. Unfortunately, many who make the statement of "don't eat them back" don't understand the science behind it all. But if you go to any good trainer, nutritionist, or dietician, many will have women on plans eating 1600-1800 calories as it incorporates exercise into your TDEE.

And lastly, most women fail because they rely on cardio and don't incorporate strength training or resistance training. And ST/RT will provide much more benefit as compared to cardio.

dawnhite7778

Okay. I just talked to the personal trainer at my gym, and she told me not teat my exercise calories back right away. She told me to wait until my matabolizm speeds up and then when I hit a stall to then add more calories. So this is what I am going to do, and see if it helps me. I know people will have negative things to say about this but if it works so be it.

CMcBryer

This whole "eating back" thing seems to be a localised nonsense mainly on this site.

If you eat more because you've exercised then you've reduced your calorie deficit. That may be fine, or it may mean you lose weight more slowly. I see countless posts "I'm exercising doing blah blah and not losing weight".

Someone eating 800 or 1000 calories a day will not see their metabolism stop or shutdown or the other silly phrases bandied about. They will see their body use the massive energy stores present as fat to fuel their metabolism. That's the whole point of trying to lose fat weight - you create a situation where the reserves are used to keep you going in the absence of or with a deficit of food intake.

Find me a clinical trial with subjects on less than 1,000 calories where even one of them fails to lose weight ! I won't be holding my breath.

Have fun losing muscle as well, then, as your body uses it as a fuel source as well as the fat. You'll be skinny! and frail and weak. I went a year getting only 800-900 calories/day when I was in college. I lost a great deal of muscle mass and less fat than you'd think, but I wanted to be skinny and I wanted to do it quickly! Guess what? It doesn't work. I gained all that weight back when I started eating again and more came back as fat than muscle.

For the past 4 months I've been eating around 20% less than my TDEE and I've been lifting with zero cardio. I've lost about a pound per week and I've been getting progressively stronger. I started at not being able to do a single pull up and as of today I'm doing 5 @225 lbs body weight. My waist has gotten 2 inches smaller and my muscles are just getting more powerful. I'm starting to see definition. I'd love to see you do that, on a 1000 calorie diet. Do it. I dare you.

RichNice

bump

erickirb

I'm not a big fan of eating them all back, I've found it does not work for me. However...what you might want to do is just go day by day. If you are really hungry one day, eat 60% of them back. If you have eaten, and are not hungry, then don't eat them back that day. If you are not using a HRM, and going by MFP or machine calories, it's quite common for those to be overestimated. So, that could be where the problem is happening. Especially if you have been eating them "all" back. Perhaps, the exercise calories are overestimated. Mix that with small amounts of underestimations on calories (which can happen even when measuring, because weighing foods is more accurate); and you would get the = no weight loss.

I have not had any problems losing by eating 10-60% of them back. Give it a try. Not all of us are so lucky to be able to eat 100% of them back. Don't however, deprive, your body. If you are hungry. Eat them back. Just having a few days where you don't eat them back completely might help move things along.

If eating them does not work for you then that means one or more of the following is happening:

You over estimate how many cals you burn from exercise (using MFP or the machine will do this)
You under estimating how much you eat (not weighing solids and measuring liquids)
You have a lower BMR then MFP predicts
You are retaining water, most likely either due to workouts or sodium intake
You have Thyroid or other hormone issues

erickirb

I've never "eaten back" my calories and think it's a daft concept. I know to lose 1lb per week I need to have a calorie deficit of 3,500 per week. I do that either by eating roughly 500 calories a day less than my body requires, or by doing 3,500 calroies of exercise per week, or a mis of both. My plan already takes into account what my goals are, so no, I don't eat back my exercise calories!!

Which is how you should do it, but most people on MFP that don't eat them eat the amount MFP tells them then do not eat back the cals burned, this way the exercise is never accounted for and they under feed themselves.

As an example say MFP gives you 1450 calories to lose 1 lb/week, and you plan on exercising 5x/week for an average of 400 cals per workout. well MFP will tell you to eat 1450 on the days you don't workout and 1850 on the days you do whereas a "professional" may tell you to eat 1700 everyday regardless if you workout.

So for the week MFP will have you eat 12,150 (1450*2+1850*5) whereas doing it the other way will have you eat 11,900 (1700*7) almost the same number of cals for the week (250 dif). The issue in not following MFP is if you don't workout the full 5 days or burn more or less than planned. If that is the case you may lose more or less than your goal, whereas MFP will have you lose your goal amount regardless how much you actually workout.

What many MFPers do is take the low 1450 and not eat back exercise calories which is wrong, if you are not eating them back then your daily activity level should reflect the higher burn with would be covered in the 1700/day above.

You are eating the higher amount so no need to eat the cals back.

erickirb

Okay. I just talked to the personal trainer at my gym, and she told me not teat my exercise calories back right away. She told me to wait until my matabolizm speeds up and then when I hit a stall to then add more calories. So this is what I am going to do, and see if it helps me. I know people will have negative things to say about this but if it works so be it.

Exercise speeds up metabolism, so if you exercise then eat them. Your training probably does not realize how MFP works. MFP already gives you a deficit to lose your goal amount of weight, if you don't eat those cals back your deficit will be even larger which is not necessarily a good thing.

JenniLisette

what i do and it works..example: i eat 1370 calories, burn 550 and eat 200 in protein back. you arent suppose to eat it all back and as long as you stayin a bit under your calorie count you're good.Best of luck!!:flowerforyou:

shannonbillows

This whole "eating back" thing seems to be a localised nonsense mainly on this site.

If you eat more because you've exercised then you've reduced your calorie deficit. That may be fine, or it may mean you lose weight more slowly. I see countless posts "I'm exercising doing blah blah and not losing weight".

Someone eating 800 or 1000 calories a day will not see their metabolism stop or shutdown or the other silly phrases bandied about. They will see their body use the massive energy stores present as fat to fuel their metabolism. That's the whole point of trying to lose fat weight - you create a situation where the reserves are used to keep you going in the absence of or with a deficit of food intake.

Find me a clinical trial with subjects on less than 1,000 calories where even one of them fails to lose weight ! I won't be holding my breath.

It's a problem on this site as many others sites include exercise into your TDEE. And yes, you will lose on huge deficits as demonstrated on problems like HCG, but the issue is, you lose muscle mass. You don't magically lose body fat and not tap into your muscle mass. You know how I know this, because there has been several people, that have done HCG and modified VLCD that have tracked weight and body fat concurrently. The result was 50% loss in muscle mass of their total weight loss. One lady lost 33 lbs of weight and 16 lbs of muscle. Do you know what less muscle does? A slower metabolism.


Now, lets look at athletes, like a Michael Phelps. Do you know he eats 15,000 calories a day? Unfortunately, there is weight loss and fat loss. If you want fat loss where you body becomes much tighter and athletic looking, then you need to feed your body to burn fat. I know this for a fact as I have done this with well over 100 men and women on this board. In fact, here is a response that I got from a 36 year old female that I have eating 2100 calories on workout days and 1800 on non workout days.

"I just wanted to thank you for your help. You helped me a few months back and I just wanted to give you an update on my progress. 12 weeks ago I started at 154 and 28% bf. I got my bf remeasured last Friday and it was 24%. But I only lost 1 pound. It is crazy to me but I have learned to ignore the scale. You were right that keeping consistent and not giving up my body would finally adjust.

Thanks again for your help!

Stephanie"


As you can tell, she cut 4% body fat in 2 months. You can say all you want and theorize, but I have proven results. If the OP wants the same, i can put her on a similar plan where she can cut weight, maintain muscle and get fit and not just skinny.


http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html

I can see where you are coming from but i have to mention that there have been studies done that you dont actually need to worry about muscle mass loss until you start reaching the low low body fat of around 6%. What the person probably lost was not muscle but lean body mass. LBM is pretty much everything in your body except fat mass. if someone loses 33 pounds of fat, im sure they also lost water probably a good few pounds worth. and as far as " Do you know what less muscle does? A slower metabolism." muscle isnt that metabolically active as far as your brain heart liver and kedneys and such are concerned... its burn about an extra 10-20 calories a day by being on your body for evey pound you put on so gain 5 ponds of muscle you get to eat about 100 calories more in a day.

Michael Phelps. Do you know he eats 15,000 calories a day.. he also spend all day in a pool that is freezing col so not only is he losing heat which his body has to up regulate his body temperature all day he is also working out vigorously all day. this is why he can eat so much. i can grantee if you picked a normal athlete they wouldn't need to eat anywhere near as much

the way you lose fat is to eat below your BMR or eat Exactly at your BMR and exercises to get under it. and to be honest exercise is a joke when it comes to burning calories. most people probably walk for 30-40 minutes and that burns approx 3-4 cals for vigorous exercise... why not just eat 3-400 calories less and use exercise as a bonus...

The only time your metabolism will stop is when your dead... you will not break if you eat low cals. the proper way to diet would be to cut as many cals as you can at the start when you have most "fat available" and slowly start to eat more as you get to your desired body shape/weight. this way it teaches you how to eat at maintenance.

CMcBryer

the way you lose fat is to eat below your BMR or eat Exactly at your BMR and exercises to get under it. and to be honest exercise is a joke when it comes to burning calories. most people probably walk for 30-40 minutes and that burns approx 3-4 cals for vigorous exercise... why not just eat 3-400 calories less and use exercise as a bonus...

You shouldn't go below your BMR (base metabolic rate). BMR is what your body needs to work if it did nothing but internal functions. You do many things during the day that burn calories above and beyond your BMR. Sitting here and typing this message I am burning calories. I'd stick with knowing your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) and lowering your calories / day to create a deficit that will result in 1 pound of loss per week. Do that for a month or two and evaluate your progress, then adjust as necessary.

This is an excellent tool to use in determining how many calories you burn in an average day:

http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/calorie-calculator.html

Sofithomas

Admittedly for the first week I got slightly bloated and looked bigger but my body was adjusting, now I look far more 'defined', have heaps more energy and continue to lose.

kimmorelli

I have the same problem. I finally started sticking strictly to the 1200 calories (and only entering my exercise at the very end of the day) and am losing weight again.

psuLemon

This whole "eating back" thing seems to be a localised nonsense mainly on this site.

If you eat more because you've exercised then you've reduced your calorie deficit. That may be fine, or it may mean you lose weight more slowly. I see countless posts "I'm exercising doing blah blah and not losing weight".

Someone eating 800 or 1000 calories a day will not see their metabolism stop or shutdown or the other silly phrases bandied about. They will see their body use the massive energy stores present as fat to fuel their metabolism. That's the whole point of trying to lose fat weight - you create a situation where the reserves are used to keep you going in the absence of or with a deficit of food intake.

Find me a clinical trial with subjects on less than 1,000 calories where even one of them fails to lose weight ! I won't be holding my breath.

It's a problem on this site as many others sites include exercise into your TDEE. And yes, you will lose on huge deficits as demonstrated on problems like HCG, but the issue is, you lose muscle mass. You don't magically lose body fat and not tap into your muscle mass. You know how I know this, because there has been several people, that have done HCG and modified VLCD that have tracked weight and body fat concurrently. The result was 50% loss in muscle mass of their total weight loss. One lady lost 33 lbs of weight and 16 lbs of muscle. Do you know what less muscle does? A slower metabolism.


Now, lets look at athletes, like a Michael Phelps. Do you know he eats 15,000 calories a day? Unfortunately, there is weight loss and fat loss. If you want fat loss where you body becomes much tighter and athletic looking, then you need to feed your body to burn fat. I know this for a fact as I have done this with well over 100 men and women on this board. In fact, here is a response that I got from a 36 year old female that I have eating 2100 calories on workout days and 1800 on non workout days.

"I just wanted to thank you for your help. You helped me a few months back and I just wanted to give you an update on my progress. 12 weeks ago I started at 154 and 28% bf. I got my bf remeasured last Friday and it was 24%. But I only lost 1 pound. It is crazy to me but I have learned to ignore the scale. You were right that keeping consistent and not giving up my body would finally adjust.

Thanks again for your help!

Stephanie"


As you can tell, she cut 4% body fat in 2 months. You can say all you want and theorize, but I have proven results. If the OP wants the same, i can put her on a similar plan where she can cut weight, maintain muscle and get fit and not just skinny.


http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html

I can see where you are coming from but i have to mention that there have been studies done that you dont actually need to worry about muscle mass loss until you start reaching the low low body fat of around 6%. What the person probably lost was not muscle but lean body mass. LBM is pretty much everything in your body except fat mass. if someone loses 33 pounds of fat, im sure they also lost water probably a good few pounds worth. and as far as " Do you know what less muscle does? A slower metabolism." muscle isnt that metabolically active as far as your brain heart liver and kedneys and such are concerned... its burn about an extra 10-20 calories a day by being on your body for evey pound you put on so gain 5 ponds of muscle you get to eat about 100 calories more in a day.

Michael Phelps. Do you know he eats 15,000 calories a day.. he also spend all day in a pool that is freezing col so not only is he losing heat which his body has to up regulate his body temperature all day he is also working out vigorously all day. this is why he can eat so much. i can grantee if you picked a normal athlete they wouldn't need to eat anywhere near as much

the way you lose fat is to eat below your BMR or eat Exactly at your BMR and exercises to get under it. and to be honest exercise is a joke when it comes to burning calories. most people probably walk for 30-40 minutes and that burns approx 3-4 cals for vigorous exercise... why not just eat 3-400 calories less and use exercise as a bonus...

The only time your metabolism will stop is when your dead... you will not break if you eat low cals. the proper way to diet would be to cut as many cals as you can at the start when you have most "fat available" and slowly start to eat more as you get to your desired body shape/weight. this way it teaches you how to eat at maintenance.

Yes, i do understand what lean body mass is made of up. And your body won't automatically attack all the fat when on VCLD. So if you can post the studies, i would be very interested to see where you got the information from . Everything I have seen suggest the loss of muscle as you lower calories.

Additionally, you do NOT need to eat below your metabolic rate to cut fat. That statement is only true if you don't exercise. I have manage to cut 6% body fat and I eat about 3000 calories. My metabolic rate is around 2080. Additionally, I have done this with a ton of people on this board and they are doing similar programs cutting 1-2% body fat a month and they are eating 800-1000 calories above their BMR. They may have been what you did, but not other.

Also, I do understand you don't need to exercise to cut body fat or weight. Exercise is fitness, diet is weight loss.



http://www.ajcn.org/content/52/6/981.abstract

On a side, note I found an interesting article that suggest exercise may help prevent reduction in RMR.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2361810

1Timothy4v8

Maybe you have over calculated what you burned and what you ate,

also maybe your motabilsm is all jacked and it might take time to get it to normal

lollypop_ginger

It doesn't work for me either, I tried it for 6 weeks and didn't lose a thing! I actually gained 7 pounds, I lost 6 after 2 weeks of not eating them again. Don't stress about it, not everything works for everyone.

Sofithomas

Everyone is different, see what works for you, if you struggle and get super hungry though do not be scared to eat (good, nutritious things) - heck, it could eb your body craving nutrition rather than hunger!! Do you eat lots of protein and veggies?

psuLemon

On a side note here is a good article to read to confirm some of the stuff I was stating.


http://www.metaboliceffect.com/topic/38-nutrition-lifestyle.aspx

karmaticgeek

Find me a clinical trial with subjects on less than 1,000 calories where even one of them fails to lose weight ! I won't be holding my breath.

Actually, in the Kekwick study, people who ate 90% carbs gained nearly 0.25 lbs per day on 1,000 calories. People on 90% protein lost 0.6 pounds per day and those on 90% fat lost 0.9 lbs per day. It's called "Calorie Intake in Relation to Body Weight Changes in the Obese" by Kekwick and Pawan.