Eating exercise cals and Eat More to Lose - same thing?

vicki81868

After reading the various threads on eating more and eating back your exercise calories, I decided to give it a try. But I am wondering if those two concepts are two different concepts, or one in the same? I know there is a group on here called Eat More to Lose. Is that different from simply eating back your exercise calories? I pretty much have my calories set at what I've always had them set at (1300), but now am eating back my exercise calories. Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?

yarwell

Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?

Probably - they're the "exercise loads so you can eat a lot" crowd. So they would probably have you exercise even more and eat ore to sustain the same deficit.

vicki81868

...and I take it you have a different theory?????

klalaw

From what I've seen, Eat More to Lose involves more than just eating back your exercise calories - it also involves setting a higher daily calorie threshold than what MFP typically recommends, based on various BMR (base metabolic rate) calculators. The premise is that MFP's recommended calorie limit tends to be below most people's BMR, causing their bodies to go into starvation mode and hold onto fat.

jaeone

Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?

Probably - they're the "exercise loads so you can eat a lot" crowd. So they would probably have you exercise even more and eat ore to sustain the same deficit.

NO, not true.

The calorie intake is based on BMR and TDEE. Which calculates your activity level. So there is no need to eat back your calories burned unless the burn takes you below your BMR..

Here is the site to figure out your numbers.
http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/

bcattoes

From what I've seen, Eat More to Lose involves more than just eating back your exercise calories - it also involves setting a higher daily calorie threshold than what MFP typically recommends, based on various BMR (base metabolic rate) calculators. The premise is that MFP's recommended calorie limit tends to be below most people's BMR, causing their bodies to go into starvation mode and hold onto fat.

Yeah, I think this it from what I've seen. I must admit that I find it irritating at the number of "eat more" posts to just about any plateau or 'not losing fast enough' message, usually without any idea what the posters BMR actually is. My BMR, for example, is lower than what MFP has me set at to lose .5 lbs per week.

Also, eating less than your BMR is not a guarantee for going into starvation mode. It totally depends on how much stored fat your have on your body. A person with a lot to lose will not go into starvation mode at 1200 net calories per day. Some people with little to lose won't. Starvation mode really isn't all that easy to achieve.

chrisb75

Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?

Probably - they're the "exercise loads so you can eat a lot" crowd. So they would probably have you exercise even more and eat ore to sustain the same deficit.

That is the most inaccurate description of EMWL I have ever seen.

shanna0413

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/forums/show/3834-eat-more-to-weigh-less

Here is the link to the eat more to weigh less group. You will see its not about exercising more just so you can eat. It gives you sites to calculate your TDEE and BMR. THere is a lot of info on here from some very knowledgable women. I hope you get to check it out.

LindaCWy

Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?

Probably - they're the "exercise loads so you can eat a lot" crowd. So they would probably have you exercise even more and eat ore to sustain the same deficit.

So untrue.

OP, I think the main reason the group was started because initially when we first start we take out MFP numbers and run with it.
Lose weight, then stall. When you stall it means something isn't going right so, in my case, I upped my cals and started losing again.
Then I stalled again, so now I am eating at maitenece to do a metabolic reset.

You will find alot of info from that group and very helpful people, you should join.

Linda_Darlene

From what I've seen, Eat More to Lose involves more than just eating back your exercise calories - it also involves setting a higher daily calorie threshold than what MFP typically recommends, based on various BMR (base metabolic rate) calculators. The premise is that MFP's recommended calorie limit tends to be below most people's BMR, causing their bodies to go into starvation mode and hold onto fat.

MFP is not the only site who uses 1200 as their lowest recommended limit.

leopard_barbie

Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?

Probably - they're the "exercise loads so you can eat a lot" crowd. So they would probably have you exercise even more and eat ore to sustain the same deficit.

I think they do it more like the fat2fitradio.com method ie. factoring your activity level into your calorie allowance whereas the MFP way is to eat back your exercise calories.

Eating more and then exercising more DOES NOT work for me haha.

Onesnap

I lost 20 lbs last year over 9 months. I took it nice and slow.

If I did not eat back my exercise calories I would have been fueling my body with 760 calories.

How is 760 enough for a healthy, active, 35 year old? It isn't.

Eat those back. Eat more to lose if that's a concept....sure.

vicki81868

Checking it out now. There are so many conflicting opinions it gets confusing! Thanks for the input!

jacksonpt

Ugh... so much wrong with this thread.


Generally speaking:

Eat more to lose means netting a high number of cals to get closer to your TDEE. The idea is that your body functions better with more fuel, so while you still need to be at a deficit to lose, the smaller the deficit is the more efficiently your body will function. Ultimately everyone has a caloric "sweet spot" they need to find... the number of cals you need to net for your body to feel good, work well, and still lose weight. The eat more to lose crowd will say that sweet spot is higher than you think it is.


Eating back exercise cals is completely different. We've all used some sort of formula to calculate/estimate the number of cals we need to eat to hit our weight loss/gain goals. In most cases, that formula takes into consideration your lifestyle/activity level (i.e. the more active you are on a day-to-day basis, the more cals you need). If you factor your exercise into your activity level, then your exercise cals are accounted for in the formula, and you DO NOT need to eat them back. If you didn't factor them in (as many don't), then you should be eating back most of them.

jacksonpt

Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?

Probably - they're the "exercise loads so you can eat a lot" crowd. So they would probably have you exercise even more and eat ore to sustain the same deficit.

no

JoniBologna

Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?

Probably - they're the "exercise loads so you can eat a lot" crowd. So they would probably have you exercise even more and eat ore to sustain the same deficit.

I think they do it more like the fat2fitradio.com method ie. factoring your activity level into your calorie allowance whereas the MFP way is to eat back your exercise calories.

Eating more and then exercising more DOES NOT work for me haha.

How do you know? Have you tried it?

jacksonpt

From what I've seen, Eat More to Lose involves more than just eating back your exercise calories - it also involves setting a higher daily calorie threshold than what MFP typically recommends

Yes.

In many cases, this is because people with relatively little to lose still try to maintain large deficits thinking they will lose the weight more quickly. The less you have to lose, the slower you should be losing it, assuming overall health is your concern and not just the number on the scale.

jacksonpt

Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?

Probably - they're the "exercise loads so you can eat a lot" crowd. So they would probably have you exercise even more and eat ore to sustain the same deficit.

The calorie intake is based on BMR and TDEE. Which calculates your activity level. So there is no need to eat back your calories burned unless the burn takes you below your BMR..

Wrong.

You do need to eat them back if you didn't factor them into your activity level. Not everyone does. If you do, then you are correct, but A LOT of people don't.

JoniBologna

After reading the various threads on eating more and eating back your exercise calories, I decided to give it a try. But I am wondering if those two concepts are two different concepts, or one in the same? I know there is a group on here called Eat More to Lose. Is that different from simply eating back your exercise calories? I pretty much have my calories set at what I've always had them set at (1300), but now am eating back my exercise calories. Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?

They are generally the same idea. Eating more helps fuel your workouts and much more provides your body with the necessary calories it needs to function. I started out by eating back all my exercise calories, and then I gradually increased my overall intake as well. It is not easy for a lot of people to cross the mental barrier that eating less = losing more, so it is good to take it step by step.

shanna0413

If you look at the group, you should be able to have most of your questions answered. Anewlucia, 31proverbs are extremely knowledgable. There are quite a few other ladies there with a lot of good info as well ) I Just cant think of all the names right now.

jacksonpt

After reading the various threads on eating more and eating back your exercise calories, I decided to give it a try. But I am wondering if those two concepts are two different concepts, or one in the same? I know there is a group on here called Eat More to Lose. Is that different from simply eating back your exercise calories? I pretty much have my calories set at what I've always had them set at (1300), but now am eating back my exercise calories. Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?

They are generally the same idea. Eating more helps fuel your workouts and much more provides your body with the necessary calories it needs to function. I started out by eating back all my exercise calories, and then I gradually increased my overall intake as well. It is not easy for a lot of people to cross the mental barrier that eating less = losing more, so it is good to take it step by step.

No, they are fundamentally different, even if they seem similar on the surface.

Yes, both end up having you eat more, but the reasoning is different.

JoniBologna

After reading the various threads on eating more and eating back your exercise calories, I decided to give it a try. But I am wondering if those two concepts are two different concepts, or one in the same? I know there is a group on here called Eat More to Lose. Is that different from simply eating back your exercise calories? I pretty much have my calories set at what I've always had them set at (1300), but now am eating back my exercise calories. Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?

They are generally the same idea. Eating more helps fuel your workouts and much more provides your body with the necessary calories it needs to function. I started out by eating back all my exercise calories, and then I gradually increased my overall intake as well. It is not easy for a lot of people to cross the mental barrier that eating less = losing more, so it is good to take it step by step.

No, they are fundamentally different, even if they seem similar on the surface.

Yes, both end up having you eat more, but the reasoning is different.

How so?

jacksonpt

After reading the various threads on eating more and eating back your exercise calories, I decided to give it a try. But I am wondering if those two concepts are two different concepts, or one in the same? I know there is a group on here called Eat More to Lose. Is that different from simply eating back your exercise calories? I pretty much have my calories set at what I've always had them set at (1300), but now am eating back my exercise calories. Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?

They are generally the same idea. Eating more helps fuel your workouts and much more provides your body with the necessary calories it needs to function. I started out by eating back all my exercise calories, and then I gradually increased my overall intake as well. It is not easy for a lot of people to cross the mental barrier that eating less = losing more, so it is good to take it step by step.

No, they are fundamentally different, even if they seem similar on the surface.

Yes, both end up having you eat more, but the reasoning is different.

How so?

Generally speaking:

Eat more to lose means netting a high number of cals to get closer to your TDEE. The idea is that your body functions better with more fuel, so while you still need to be at a deficit to lose, the smaller the deficit is the more efficiently your body will function. Ultimately everyone has a caloric "sweet spot" they need to find... the number of cals you need to net for your body to feel good, work well, and still lose weight. The eat more to lose crowd will say that sweet spot is higher than you think it is.


Eating back exercise cals is completely different. We've all used some sort of formula to calculate/estimate the number of cals we need to eat to hit our weight loss/gain goals. In most cases, that formula takes into consideration your lifestyle/activity level (i.e. the more active you are on a day-to-day basis, the more cals you need). If you factor your exercise into your activity level, then your exercise cals are accounted for in the formula, and you DO NOT need to eat them back. If you didn't factor them in (as many don't), then you should be eating back most of them.

Eating more to lose is about lessening your deficit to lose more weight.

Eating back exercise cals is about meeting your daily caloric need, and to a lesser extent, what that caloric need is based on.


.

jaeone

Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?

Probably - they're the "exercise loads so you can eat a lot" crowd. So they would probably have you exercise even more and eat ore to sustain the same deficit.

The calorie intake is based on BMR and TDEE. Which calculates your activity level. So there is no need to eat back your calories burned unless the burn takes you below your BMR..

Wrong.

You do need to eat them back if you didn't factor them into your activity level. Not everyone does. If you do, then you are correct, but A LOT of people don't.

The TDEE Table I included factors in your activity level. If you use the table NOBODY has to factor them in was my point.

jacksonpt

Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?

Probably - they're the "exercise loads so you can eat a lot" crowd. So they would probably have you exercise even more and eat ore to sustain the same deficit.

The calorie intake is based on BMR and TDEE. Which calculates your activity level. So there is no need to eat back your calories burned unless the burn takes you below your BMR..

Wrong.

You do need to eat them back if you didn't factor them into your activity level. Not everyone does. If you do, then you are correct, but A LOT of people don't.

The TDEE Table I included factors in your activity level. If you use the table NOBODY has to factor them in was my point.

you're missing the point.

littlepinkhearts

If you look at the group, you should be able to have most of your questions answered. Anewlucia, 31proverbs are extremely knowledgable. There are quite a few other ladies there with a lot of good info as well ) I Just cant think of all the names right now.

This^^^^ and they could appear to be the same thing until you read about each. I would advise you check out the group and read up so you can make an informed decision on which one you want to use in your particular situation.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/forums/show/3834-eat-more-to-weigh-less

bcattoes

After reading the various threads on eating more and eating back your exercise calories, I decided to give it a try. But I am wondering if those two concepts are two different concepts, or one in the same? I know there is a group on here called Eat More to Lose. Is that different from simply eating back your exercise calories? I pretty much have my calories set at what I've always had them set at (1300), but now am eating back my exercise calories. Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?

They are generally the same idea. Eating more helps fuel your workouts and much more provides your body with the necessary calories it needs to function. I started out by eating back all my exercise calories, and then I gradually increased my overall intake as well. It is not easy for a lot of people to cross the mental barrier that eating less = losing more, so it is good to take it step by step.

No, they are fundamentally different, even if they seem similar on the surface.

Yes, both end up having you eat more, but the reasoning is different.

Isn't that a bit like saying running to lose weight and running to improve cardio-vascular health are fundamentally different? It's all still running.

JoniBologna

Eating back exercise cals is completely different. We've all used some sort of formula to calculate/estimate the number of cals we need to eat to hit our weight loss/gain goals. In most cases, that formula takes into consideration your lifestyle/activity level (i.e. the more active you are on a day-to-day basis, the more cals you need). If you factor your exercise into your activity level, then your exercise cals are accounted for in the formula, and you DO NOT need to eat them back. If you didn't factor them in (as many don't), then you should be eating back most of them.

Eating more to lose is about lessening your deficit to lose more weight.

Eating back exercise cals is about meeting your daily caloric need, and to a lesser extent, what that caloric need is based on.


.

You don't have to be so rude to everyone, especially when they are trying to advocate the same thing as you. I guess I didn't realize I was dealing with a genius. Honestly, I still think they are similar, and you're getting all crazy about semantics.

OP. Check out the eat more to weigh less group. Enough said.

jacksonpt

After reading the various threads on eating more and eating back your exercise calories, I decided to give it a try. But I am wondering if those two concepts are two different concepts, or one in the same? I know there is a group on here called Eat More to Lose. Is that different from simply eating back your exercise calories? I pretty much have my calories set at what I've always had them set at (1300), but now am eating back my exercise calories. Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?

They are generally the same idea. Eating more helps fuel your workouts and much more provides your body with the necessary calories it needs to function. I started out by eating back all my exercise calories, and then I gradually increased my overall intake as well. It is not easy for a lot of people to cross the mental barrier that eating less = losing more, so it is good to take it step by step.

No, they are fundamentally different, even if they seem similar on the surface.

Yes, both end up having you eat more, but the reasoning is different.

Isn't that a bit like saying running to lose weight and running to improve cardio-vascular health are fundamentally different? It's all still running.

No, it's not. Weight loss and cardiovascular health are completely different issues. Can they sometimes overlap? Sure. Do they necessarily overlap? No.

Running is the method. Weight loss and/or improved cardiovascular health are the results. As is sweating. You wouldn't say sweating and cardiovascular health are the same thing, would you?

jacksonpt

You don't have to be so rude to everyone

How am I being rude? Honestly... I'm not trying to be, and if I am I apologize, I'm just trying to share information is the most accurate and straight forward way possible.

I guess I didn't realize I was dealing with a genius.

talk about being rude...

Honestly, I still think they are similar, and you're getting all crazy about semantics.

Yes, they are similar. But semantics do matter. When someone tries something new with their diet/exercise plan and it does or doesn't work, it's important to understand the semantics so they can understand WHY it did or didn't work. If it didn't work there is a better understanding of what/why they did what they did and they can't make better decisions moving forward. Having a more thorough understanding also makes threads like these more helpful to others, rather than throwing around basically useless advice because "it worked for me" (not saying you did that).

bcattoes

After reading the various threads on eating more and eating back your exercise calories, I decided to give it a try. But I am wondering if those two concepts are two different concepts, or one in the same? I know there is a group on here called Eat More to Lose. Is that different from simply eating back your exercise calories? I pretty much have my calories set at what I've always had them set at (1300), but now am eating back my exercise calories. Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?

They are generally the same idea. Eating more helps fuel your workouts and much more provides your body with the necessary calories it needs to function. I started out by eating back all my exercise calories, and then I gradually increased my overall intake as well. It is not easy for a lot of people to cross the mental barrier that eating less = losing more, so it is good to take it step by step.

No, they are fundamentally different, even if they seem similar on the surface.

Yes, both end up having you eat more, but the reasoning is different.

Isn't that a bit like saying running to lose weight and running to improve cardio-vascular health are fundamentally different? It's all still running.

No, it's not. Weight loss and cardiovascular health are completely different issues. Can they sometimes overlap? Sure. Do they necessarily overlap? No.

Running is the method. Weight loss and/or improved cardiovascular health are the results. As is sweating. You wouldn't say sweating and cardiovascular health are the same thing, would you?

But when it comes to eating more to lose weight, both the method and the outcome are the same, whether you are eating back exercise calories or eating to be above BMR. So I don't see why how the reasoning behind eating more make them fundamentally different? Whichever reason you give, you are still eating to fuel your body.