Do you guys eat back your exercise calories?
Options
Replies
-
No one gets it that fast! :frown:
Fess up, you did some reading, and actual thinking, perhaps even got out scratch paper and did math. :bigsmile:
I have been talking to people on here, and reading up. Also, working my @$$ off and not losing any weight, but losing inches on my calves and thighs, which were not fat. Oh noes, I thought. I am losing the wrong parts of my body. Something's wrong.
So now I am kind of angry at MFP. 1200 is not really a good place to set the base, is it? It should be 1200 + walking around calories + exercise calories. There is no consideration made for the walking around calories in MFP's equation, and that is what is throwing people way off.
The question then becomes: how many calories are you burning in an average day without exercise? 400? 500? More? I have a sedentary job, but I have a small child. Then I work out 6 days a week for an hour. It's hard to calculate. I imagine that I have to eat in a way that I can keep eating for the rest of my life. Dieting simply does not work. So I'm trying hard to figure this out. People who are eating 1200 calories then working out 300 calories... I don't know how they are surviving, much less keeping it off when they feel like living normally again.0 -
I have been talking to people on here, and reading up. Also, working my @$$ off and not losing any weight, but losing inches on my calves and thighs, which were not fat. Oh noes, I thought. I am losing the wrong parts of my body. Something's wrong.
So now I am kind of angry at MFP. 1200 is not really a good place to set the base, is it? It should be 1200 + walking around calories + exercise calories. There is no consideration made for the walking around calories in MFP's equation, and that is what is throwing people way off.
The question then becomes: how many calories are you burning in an average day without exercise? 400? 500? More? I have a sedentary job, but I have a small child. Then I work out 6 days a week for an hour. It's hard to calculate. I imagine that I have to eat in a way that I can keep eating for the rest of my life. Dieting simply does not work. So I'm trying hard to figure this out. People who are eating 1200 calories then working out 300 calories... I don't know how they are surviving, much less keeping it off when they feel like living normally again.
Now, you weren't going to need those big calf muscles later anyway, were you?
Are you saying you wanted to keep that muscle for as long as possible?
But wouldn't you rather slow your metabolism down and have the muscle you'll have at goal weight, just 30-80 lbs too early?
All sarcasm of course for anyone still reading these outside another poster that can't read.
Anyway, if you have decent daily routine you can indeed nail down decently, this would probably work well for you, plus maximize that BMR and daily activity deficit that is the true fat burner compared to exercise done in a day.
Really, who works out 1600-2000 calories daily anyway, sure hate to miss that burn.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/477666-eating-for-future-you-method0 -
No one gets it that fast! :frown:
Fess up, you did some reading, and actual thinking, perhaps even got out scratch paper and did math. :bigsmile:
I have been talking to people on here, and reading up. Also, working my @$$ off and not losing any weight, but losing inches on my calves and thighs, which were not fat. Oh noes, I thought. I am losing the wrong parts of my body. Something's wrong.
So now I am kind of angry at MFP. 1200 is not really a good place to set the base, is it? It should be 1200 + walking around calories + exercise calories. There is no consideration made for the walking around calories in MFP's equation, and that is what is throwing people way off.
The question then becomes: how many calories are you burning in an average day without exercise? 400? 500? More? I have a sedentary job, but I have a small child. Then I work out 6 days a week for an hour. It's hard to calculate. I imagine that I have to eat in a way that I can keep eating for the rest of my life. Dieting simply does not work. So I'm trying hard to figure this out. People who are eating 1200 calories then working out 300 calories... I don't know how they are surviving, much less keeping it off when they feel like living normally again.
There is consideration for 'walking around' calories - its the activity level you set. I do admit though I think the explanation of the non-workout activity levels is not very clear - and most fols pick sedentary when lightly active is more appropriate, The other thing is that people pick too high of a goal weight loss. The combination of these two usually leads to a goal of less than 1200 - which MFP over-rides with 1200. If you have a small child, I would think you are definately more than sedentary.
I agree with you on the sustainability of 1200 and the fact that they will most likely put it back on again.0 -
]
Go back re-read my posts. And then tell me exactly where I said that exercise calories don't matter in fat loss. Because what I said and what you think I said are two different things.
You're arguing semantics. I claimed that logging anything is better than nothing. I did this using multiple different examples on different posts. Afterwards, you claimed that zero was best. Perhaps you're claiming 100 is best, or 200. Or anything other than the exact verbiage I quoted. It doesn't matter. Zero is never best, if you exercised at all.
The newbie threads are up top. Read them. Understand them. You'll do better.
No, I'm not. You are making logical leaps as you did in your previous posts. You just claimed that I said "exercise calories don't matter in fat loss". Again, I'm waiting for you to point me to the place where I said that. What you think I said and what I actually said are two different things.
Here, I will summarize things for you:
The argument in reality was:
You believe it is necessary to keep track of your exercise calories
I believe it is not necessary to track. It unnecessarily overcomplicates things when it simply does not matter (in terms of TRACKING).
You, in turn, made some strawman arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand. I then called you out on your simplistic and flawed understanding of BMR (and thermodynamics in general), and I am still waiting for you to address those points. But by all means, keep making personal attacks and posting MFP links and asking me to read them. I'm sure that will really get us somewhere :laugh:. If it's not a scientific study, I likely won't be interested.
Still waiting for you to address the post. Here, I'll make it easy for you and paste it:
You mean you will lose weight in a caloric deficit? ShockingAs far as the benefits, you're making it too easy by asking for just one. Study after study shows that if your net caloric intake falls below your BMR, you begin to burn substantial muscle mass in addition to fat.
This makes no sense at all. Can you define "net expenditure" for me? How is my BMR "dependent upon my net expenditure"? My BMR is a PART of my net expenditure.Your BMR is dependent upon your net expenditure, and your net expenditure is dependent upon your calories burned. Thus, your exercise calories are directly related to whether or not you reach your BMR in terms of net calories consumed. By assuming you have burned "0 calories" exercising, you are thus burning substantial muscle mass.
As an added note, you are vastly simplifying the concept of "burning muscle mass".
But let's assume for a second that the above logic isn't flawed (which it is). If you can actually measure your exact "net expenditure", and will you then, in turn, consume exactly that many calories in return? How will this cause you to lose fat?
Let's assume for a second that everything you say is true.and it is absolutely critical for one to count the energy expenditure of exercise. Most people aren't very good at estimating this expenditure, and studies have shown this. It hurts their fat loss efforts more than helps in my opinion, and at the very least it unnecessarily over-complicates things.But you knew that, right? There's no way you couldn't know something so absolutely fundamental.
Sure, I'll do so. Let's keep with one discussion at a time though.In the meantime, I'm still waiting for you to cite a specific post where I recommended something unhealthy for someone. If you can't do so, please refrain from suggesting otherwise. If you have a specific beef with me, send me a message so we can rectify it. If you're just making wild and unfounded claims out of some sort of weird emotional need, let's not let it affect helping others.0 -
I'm on a 1200 cal diet also, and i agree with you!0
-
After reading all the posts here, I am confused. WHY would you eat back your calories? Isn't the one of the main points of working out to BURN calories? Why would you undo your 1 hour jog and eat them all back? Eating after a work out is good for you, gives you your energy, but shouldn't that be from the original calorie intake you set that you still have remaining for the day...? So if I burned say 400 calories in a day, I am not going to eat an extra 400 in addition to my set cals for the day and undo the workout, that doesn't make sense to me...0
-
i only eat back the calories if im starving! but that is rare.0
-
Yup, I exercise just to have the extra to eat.0
-
After reading all the posts here, I am confused. WHY would you eat back your calories? Isn't the one of the main points of working out to BURN calories? Why would you undo your 1 hour jog and eat them all back? Eating after a work out is good for you, gives you your energy, but shouldn't that be from the original calorie intake you set that you still have remaining for the day...? So if I burned say 400 calories in a day, I am not going to eat an extra 400 in addition to my set cals for the day and undo the workout, that doesn't make sense to me...
Working out has a load of other benefits besides just losing weight faster. But if the only reason you're working out is to watch the number on the scale drop faster, you're probably right.
On the other hand, if you want to maintain muscle you've built, making the weight loss a bit more gradual (which includes not having too high of a deficit) is helpful.0 -
After reading all the posts here, I am confused. WHY would you eat back your calories? Isn't the one of the main points of working out to BURN calories? Why would you undo your 1 hour jog and eat them all back? Eating after a work out is good for you, gives you your energy, but shouldn't that be from the original calorie intake you set that you still have remaining for the day...? So if I burned say 400 calories in a day, I am not going to eat an extra 400 in addition to my set cals for the day and undo the workout, that doesn't make sense to me...
If you already have an appropriate deficit baked into your base goal - then not eating them back dreates a bigger deficit, which can be too large for a healthy weight loss.
MFP bakes the deficit in already.0 -
After reading all the posts here, I am confused. WHY would you eat back your calories? Isn't the one of the main points of working out to BURN calories? Why would you undo your 1 hour jog and eat them all back? Eating after a work out is good for you, gives you your energy, but shouldn't that be from the original calorie intake you set that you still have remaining for the day...? So if I burned say 400 calories in a day, I am not going to eat an extra 400 in addition to my set cals for the day and undo the workout, that doesn't make sense to me...
You've missed the point of the way MFP calculates your daily calorie allowance. If you use MFP numbers, then that does not include any exercise, you add it (and eat it) as you do it.
If you have used a different method (that already takes exercise into account) then you're right, you shouldn't eat those cals.
And yes, I eat my exercise cals - why deprive myself of energy when I can lose weight eating those cals?0 -
.
No offense but this frightens me.If your trying to lose weight, no you dont eat them back, the bigger defict the more you will loose, i have over a 2000 calorie defict every day im loosing 5 pounds a week by doing this
Wow....it frightens me too!
A 2000 daily deficit does not sound healthy especially when a healthy weight loss is 1-2 pounds a week. Five pounds lost
is great, but I would not expect this number every week. I really doubt your doctor would recommend a huge calorie deficit
like that. But, it is your body, do what you like and good luck!
each week us great, but I would not expect that number to hold true every week.0 -
Anyway, if you have decent daily routine you can indeed nail down decently, this would probably work well for you, plus maximize that BMR and daily activity deficit that is the true fat burner compared to exercise done in a day.
Really, who works out 1600-2000 calories daily anyway, sure hate to miss that burn.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/477666-eating-for-future-you-method
I am still perplexed, though. I might just be dense. Is my BMR 1200? MFP says that is what I should be eating per day. I eat back exercise calories. So why I am I still losing muscle? How much more should I be eating? This is what is scary for people, and frustrating. You put in your humbers, you get your calorie allowance. You eat it + exercise, still got a fat stomach but smaller legs. Something is wrong. Eating MORE is the answer?!? How much more? How can that be?0 -
Anyway, if you have decent daily routine you can indeed nail down decently, this would probably work well for you, plus maximize that BMR and daily activity deficit that is the true fat burner compared to exercise done in a day.
Really, who works out 1600-2000 calories daily anyway, sure hate to miss that burn.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/477666-eating-for-future-you-method
I am still perplexed, though. I might just be dense. Is my BMR 1200? MFP says that is what I should be eating per day. I eat back exercise calories. So why I am I still losing muscle? How much more should I be eating? This is what is scary for people, and frustrating. You put in your humbers, you get your calorie allowance. You eat it + exercise, still got a fat stomach but smaller legs. Something is wrong. Eating MORE is the answer?!? How much more? How can that be?
How much weight did you tell MFP you wanted to lose per week? How much is your daily calorie deficit at 1200?0 -
After reading all the posts here, I am confused. WHY would you eat back your calories? Isn't the one of the main points of working out to BURN calories? Why would you undo your 1 hour jog and eat them all back? Eating after a work out is good for you, gives you your energy, but shouldn't that be from the original calorie intake you set that you still have remaining for the day...? So if I burned say 400 calories in a day, I am not going to eat an extra 400 in addition to my set cals for the day and undo the workout, that doesn't make sense to me...
That is a method for loosing weight.
You eat at maintenance level that does NOT include exercise. Must select activity level honestly. Weight loss goal to Maintain.
Then with exercise, you create a deficit. Enter your exercise calories so you know about how much you are creating, and see how it works out.
In studies it never works out great. You'd think eating at maintenance would keep you from feeling hungry, but usually people left to their own devices do the type of workout that leaves them hungry, and they end up eating back their deficit anyway. At least MFP would help with that aspect.
Now, if you can avoid doing that, for so many on here that make exercise such a major part of their new life, they probably could actually obtain it, and it would work out better for them.
But that's not how MFP is setup, though you could tweak it as such as described above.
Here is study showing it can work out just as well as diet and exercise. And much better than diet alone.
http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/DietExStudy.htmlThe group that exercised and dieted lost more fat than the groups that either dieted or exercised alone. The group that exercised gained the most muscle mass and interestingly, lost more body fat as compared to the diet group, although weight loss was marginally less. This study also demonstrates that exercise can maintain (and increase) lean mass while dieting.0 -
How much weight did you tell MFP you wanted to lose per week? How much is your daily calorie deficit at 1200?
I told it 2 lbs at first, then 1 lb. It didn't matter, my base was still 1200, as MFP won't go lower than that. How can I know what my daily calorie deficit is, if I don't really know what I expending each day to begin with? Am I sedentary, lightly active? I work out for an hour 6 times a day but I have a sedentary job. All the calculators for this on the internet are different. Different stories everywhere.0 -
Anyway, if you have decent daily routine you can indeed nail down decently, this would probably work well for you, plus maximize that BMR and daily activity deficit that is the true fat burner compared to exercise done in a day.
Really, who works out 1600-2000 calories daily anyway, sure hate to miss that burn.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/477666-eating-for-future-you-method
I am still perplexed, though. I might just be dense. Is my BMR 1200? MFP says that is what I should be eating per day. I eat back exercise calories. So why I am I still losing muscle? How much more should I be eating? This is what is scary for people, and frustrating. You put in your humbers, you get your calorie allowance. You eat it + exercise, still got a fat stomach but smaller legs. Something is wrong. Eating MORE is the answer?!? How much more? How can that be?
Are you weight training? Eating more is the answer if you are not eating enough to sustain your metabolism and to fuel exercise.0 -
How much weight did you tell MFP you wanted to lose per week? How much is your daily calorie deficit at 1200?
I told it 2 lbs at first, then 1 lb. It didn't matter, my base was still 1200, as MFP won't go lower than that. How can I know what my daily calorie deficit is, if I don't really know what I expending each day to begin with? Am I sedentary, lightly active? I work out for an hour 6 times a day but I have a sedentary job. All the calculators for this on the internet are different. Different stories everywhere.
How all are you? What type of job do you have - even though you say it is sedentary, do you get up an walk around? How active are you outside work when you are not exercising? I find that most people are not really sedentary (in the MFP context) and should really be at least at a lightly active setting.0 -
Anyway, if you have decent daily routine you can indeed nail down decently, this would probably work well for you, plus maximize that BMR and daily activity deficit that is the true fat burner compared to exercise done in a day.
Really, who works out 1600-2000 calories daily anyway, sure hate to miss that burn.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/477666-eating-for-future-you-method
I am still perplexed, though. I might just be dense. Is my BMR 1200? MFP says that is what I should be eating per day. I eat back exercise calories. So why I am I still losing muscle? How much more should I be eating? This is what is scary for people, and frustrating. You put in your humbers, you get your calorie allowance. You eat it + exercise, still got a fat stomach but smaller legs. Something is wrong. Eating MORE is the answer?!? How much more? How can that be?
Well, you will always lose muscle along with fat. But don't just assume that losing inches in your legs = losing muscles... Check your Body Fat % as accurately as you can (You can use things like callipers, Bod Pod if there is one near where you live, or measurements with www.fat2fitradio.com/tools )
You can't "spot reduce", that is, lose weight where you want, in any way. No specific exercise, no diet, nothing does that. Your body chooses where you lose fat, and if that for you is behind ears, between toes and around your calves before the stomach region, well the only thing you can do is reach your healthy Body Fat % and keep going
It'll happen. 0 -
Oh I happily eat them back..... BMR is 2300 with a 500 calorie deficit to lose a pound a week is already built in by MFP so my exercise calories are there to fuel my workouts... Currently eating 3200-3400 calories a day with my exercise calories..... Best of Luck to you...
WOW great job! I try to eat mine back to, I'd rather lose 1lb a week nd keep it off!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions