WHY DO PEOPLE EAT BACK THEIR EXERCISE CALS?!
Options
Replies
-
I just DO NOT get it!! You spend an hour in the gym working off burning 600 cal and then you just eat them back???
Why would you eat even a LITTLE back??
I thought the point was to burn these calories. WHY does MFP then add them to your food?!
Because you are supposed to. Goodness. You don't want to consistently be several hundred calories under what you're supposed to eat.0 -
Its no longer an "Eat less move more"
Its "Eat right and move with a purpose!"
Yes eating right means less junk, and guess what healthy foods aren't as high in calories as junk food. I just at a huge broiled chicken breast, spinach, mashed potatoes and a salad and that is just over 400 calories. Or I could eat a value meal at Mickey D's for 1000 calories. I can't understand how those who swear by eating back calories do it and eat right, because eliminating junk food automatically cut my calories.
But knowing how food works in your system clearly shows that you can eat anything below TDEE and lose weight.
A carb is a carb.
Etc....
After detoxing and regulating hormones you can eat anything to lose weight.
We have proven that.
That is not true, a carb is not just a carb. You can't tell me our body handles a chocolate bar the same as a strawberry. I have suffered from hypoglycemic episodes for nearly ten years and I also have PCOS. In the past when I dieted I just ate in moderation, not changing any of my eating habits. I never ate raw vegetables and rarely ate fruit. I ate a lot of pasta and always fed my sweet tooth. I always said I couldn't do low carb because of the hypoglycemia but when I started relying on veggies and fruits for carbs and eating less sweets, guess what the cravings for sweets went away as did the hypoglycemia. Some of you may want to focus on the number of calories consumed, I find the quality of those calories much more important to my weight loss journey and overall health.
PCOS I understand but what are you doing on a daily basis to break the insulin resistance you have?
Simple ways to break insulin resistance are:
1) Lifting weights
2) Small cycles of fasting
So if you could eat at a slight deficit, lift weights 3x a week and skip breakfast to have the body you want....
Be careful with chronic carb cutting.
It could lead to bigger problems down the road.
As a person with PCOS your biggest enemy is hormones.
Second biggest enemy is insulin resistance.
Overcome both and youll be set.
Currently I'm doing Jillian Michaels 90 Day Body Revolution, which is 6 days a week, weights 4 out of the 6. The funny thing is my PCOS was best in check and I was a size 4 when I ran all the time and lifted no weights. I lift weights now because of my my body goals, not for the PCOS.
I try to net under 100 carbs a day. This still allows me to have bread and some potatoes some times, but forces me to restrict the processed stuff and sweets which usually the cause of my hypoglycemic episodes. I have not had one since I cut carbs. Some people complain about feeling hungry or cranky and I'm neither. I eat well over 100g of protein most days and I guess that's why I'm full and I give it all in my workouts. In general women with PCOS have to work harder for the same result, its not a calories in vs calories out for us. Online BMR calculators don't capture what's truly going on in our bodies and unless you have a HRM, exercise calories are estimates, I wouldn't dare eat back all of an estimated amount. But if that works for some keep doing what works for you
Since you are eating at quite the deficit I'll challenge you to drop JM30DS down to 3x a week at your current caloric intake.
But eat back the calories.
I can guarantee a better weight loss than what you have now.
As for primal I believe Mark Sisson had a woman with Pcos who broke it with that lifestyle.
Don't say you can guarantee results, because you can't guarantee anything to someone with PCOS unless you are doing hormonal/blood work. I will pass on your challenge. I am not doing 30 Day Shred, but her 90 day Body Revolution, which makes 30DS look like a walk in the park. I am finishing up week 6 and I'm running 3 times a week. Working out makes me feel good. As for eating back calories, if I'm hungry I will do it, if I'm not I won't. I listen to my body, not some calculator. I am applying the self-discipline that I should have applied two years ago when I my 4s and 6s started turning into 10s and 12s. I will have to pass on Primal too, I actually hate meat, I force myself to eat chicken and fish as it is. And free range organic would cost me a small fortune here in Toronto. Hell I can barely afford regular. Meat and dairy prices are almost double what they are back home in the States. If my program fails me, I will switch it up, but until then I'm going to keep pushing forward.
*shrugs*
I can only go by the results of all the people eating under my advice.
When you are ready to try something different look me up.
All are welcome!0 -
Bwahahaha! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:I just DO NOT get it!! You spend an hour in the gym working off burning 600 cal and then you just eat them back???
Why would you eat even a LITTLE back??
I thought the point was to burn these calories. WHY does MFP then add them to your food?!
those calories taste better than non-gym calories. true story.0 -
That's the thing- the blog doesn't reference a study. It draws conclusions about a study without referencing it. And you're drawing conclusions on someone else's conclusions, from facts that haven't been explicitly stated. My interpretation of the blog is different than yours- I think that it's saying that at 3000+ calorie deficit, and low body fat %, you will lose significant muscle. I agree with that- but I don't think you can extrapolate conclusions from the facts given about people losing muscle, who still have body fat to lose, at a more moderate calorie deficit. If you have links to the actual study I would be happy to look at it.
Not trying to be snarky here, but I don't know if you're agreeing with me or arguing by posting this site- it doesn't really have any impact either way on my point. I'm definitely not going to get in to an argument about starvation mode vs. starvation- those discussions always get hung up on semantics and I'm not interested. If you're using a blog where it mentions muscle loss at lower than 6% BF to counter a textbook, I'm not going to argue that either. People can post anything they want in blogs- they're not credible sources.
Check this
That's absurd. Everyone on a deficit loses some muscle- the goal is to preserve it as much as possible. It's impossible to lose 100% fat. I think you're confusing losing muscle with starvation (not starvation mode, true starvation).Because MFP already figures in a reasonable to high calorie deficit when you choose your weight loss goals. If you are shooting to lose 2lbs/wk, and you don't eat back exercise calories, your deficit becomes higher than well established safe limits. You can only lose so much fat in a day, so pushing the boundaries means your additional weight loss beyond a reasonable deficit is going to come from your muscle mass. Not a good choice.
NOT TRUE, you won't start using muscle until your below 6% body fat.
Here's typical weight loss, per my exercise physiology textbook.
http://fitnessblackbook.com/main/starvation-mode-why-you-probably-never-need-to-worry-about-it/
The blog references a study, which shows that you won't lose muscle on a deficit unless you're around 5-6%. Many people can maintain and sometimes increase muscle mass on a cal deficit (especially with methods such as intermittent fasting).
Here's a starting point for you to look for it-
http://www.abstractboard.com/author/Friedl+K/K-Friedl.html
I did some digging and thought I *might* have found the "referenced" study(http://www.ajcn.org/content/83/5/1068.full), but then there's this in the discussion section, which is basically the opposite of the blog author's conclusion:
"With prolonged underfeeding, FFM loss is ≈25% of the weight lost, with fat accounting for the balance, although extreme energy deficits, as in the present study, can increase the contribution of FFM (38). Using less glycogen would tend to decrease protein use for gluconeogenesis and reduce the loss of FFM (38, 39). Women are reported to use less glycogen and excrete less urea nitrogen than men in response to ≈95 min of moderate-intensity exercise (35). The loss of FFM during the FEX was a smaller percentage of body weight loss in the women than in the men."
So, please, if you have the study post it.
You're right the blog didn't reference it, just talked about it. But yeh that's the right study you found.
My point is that- these guys started off not very lean (on average), they had a large cal deficit every day and consistently lost fat without losing muscle until they reached 5-6%. Going against what you said about muscle always being lost when losing fat.
I don't think it is unreasonable to say that this shows that we can lose fat without losing muscle (as that is what happened up until the 8th week when some of the guys hit 5-6% bf). & most people here won't intend to go below 5-6% fat OR be at such an extremely low cal deficit either (which both contributed to the eventual loss in muscle).
Again the army guys only started losing muscle when they were around 5-6%. Before that they maintained muscle whilst losing fat which goes against the point you're making that muscle is always lost when cutting.
With regards to the quote you give- at the end of the study muscle was lost yes due to the severe cal deficit in combination with the low bodyfat %'s, but that doesn't change the fact that the first 8 weeks showed that fat can be lost without muscle being lost.
Anyway there is plenty of anecdotal evidence out there as well of people losing fat and maintaining or even gaining muscle. Some examples can he found here http://www.leangains.com/search/label/Success Stories
You clearly didn't read the study. I did your research for you, I spoon fed you the conclusion, and you still are regurgitating what's in that blog. You can't be bothered to participate in an intelligent conversation, I'm finished with this.
And I am well aware of leangains- there is a VERY specific protocol that MAY allow you to build muscle on an overall deficit, which requires cycling calories above maintenance. It's not exactly the same as preserving LBM on a deficit. Eating adequate protein and lifting weights minimizes muscle loss while on a deficit. The idea that you CAN'T lose lean mass until you hit 6% or less body fat is stupid.
Thanks for finding this. There are a couple of issues with the study in any event that I am sure you noticed. The main one was the very small sample size. But the ones I am still trying to find is where this reference to 5% is mentioned (except in reference to a minimum % requirement for healthy BF% minimum) plus the study appears to last for only one week so I am not sure where the 8 week reference comes from in the blog. Did you see where these references would have come from within the study? Maybe I am missing them. Or maybe the folks who are citing this blog could answer these questions!
That being said, as you note, this study seems to be contrary to the conclusion reached in the blog.0 -
haha, love this thread.0
-
That's the thing- the blog doesn't reference a study. It draws conclusions about a study without referencing it. And you're drawing conclusions on someone else's conclusions, from facts that haven't been explicitly stated. My interpretation of the blog is different than yours- I think that it's saying that at 3000+ calorie deficit, and low body fat %, you will lose significant muscle. I agree with that- but I don't think you can extrapolate conclusions from the facts given about people losing muscle, who still have body fat to lose, at a more moderate calorie deficit. If you have links to the actual study I would be happy to look at it.
Not trying to be snarky here, but I don't know if you're agreeing with me or arguing by posting this site- it doesn't really have any impact either way on my point. I'm definitely not going to get in to an argument about starvation mode vs. starvation- those discussions always get hung up on semantics and I'm not interested. If you're using a blog where it mentions muscle loss at lower than 6% BF to counter a textbook, I'm not going to argue that either. People can post anything they want in blogs- they're not credible sources.
Check this
That's absurd. Everyone on a deficit loses some muscle- the goal is to preserve it as much as possible. It's impossible to lose 100% fat. I think you're confusing losing muscle with starvation (not starvation mode, true starvation).Because MFP already figures in a reasonable to high calorie deficit when you choose your weight loss goals. If you are shooting to lose 2lbs/wk, and you don't eat back exercise calories, your deficit becomes higher than well established safe limits. You can only lose so much fat in a day, so pushing the boundaries means your additional weight loss beyond a reasonable deficit is going to come from your muscle mass. Not a good choice.
NOT TRUE, you won't start using muscle until your below 6% body fat.
Here's typical weight loss, per my exercise physiology textbook.
http://fitnessblackbook.com/main/starvation-mode-why-you-probably-never-need-to-worry-about-it/
The blog references a study, which shows that you won't lose muscle on a deficit unless you're around 5-6%. Many people can maintain and sometimes increase muscle mass on a cal deficit (especially with methods such as intermittent fasting).
Here's a starting point for you to look for it-
http://www.abstractboard.com/author/Friedl+K/K-Friedl.html
I did some digging and thought I *might* have found the "referenced" study(http://www.ajcn.org/content/83/5/1068.full), but then there's this in the discussion section, which is basically the opposite of the blog author's conclusion:
"With prolonged underfeeding, FFM loss is ≈25% of the weight lost, with fat accounting for the balance, although extreme energy deficits, as in the present study, can increase the contribution of FFM (38). Using less glycogen would tend to decrease protein use for gluconeogenesis and reduce the loss of FFM (38, 39). Women are reported to use less glycogen and excrete less urea nitrogen than men in response to ≈95 min of moderate-intensity exercise (35). The loss of FFM during the FEX was a smaller percentage of body weight loss in the women than in the men."
So, please, if you have the study post it.
You're right the blog didn't reference it, just talked about it. But yeh that's the right study you found.
My point is that- these guys started off not very lean (on average), they had a large cal deficit every day and consistently lost fat without losing muscle until they reached 5-6%. Going against what you said about muscle always being lost when losing fat.
I don't think it is unreasonable to say that this shows that we can lose fat without losing muscle (as that is what happened up until the 8th week when some of the guys hit 5-6% bf). & most people here won't intend to go below 5-6% fat OR be at such an extremely low cal deficit either (which both contributed to the eventual loss in muscle).
Again the army guys only started losing muscle when they were around 5-6%. Before that they maintained muscle whilst losing fat which goes against the point you're making that muscle is always lost when cutting.
With regards to the quote you give- at the end of the study muscle was lost yes due to the severe cal deficit in combination with the low bodyfat %'s, but that doesn't change the fact that the first 8 weeks showed that fat can be lost without muscle being lost.
Anyway there is plenty of anecdotal evidence out there as well of people losing fat and maintaining or even gaining muscle. Some examples can he found here http://www.leangains.com/search/label/Success Stories
You clearly didn't read the study. I did your research for you, I spoon fed you the conclusion, and you still are regurgitating what's in that blog. You can't be bothered to participate in an intelligent conversation, I'm finished with this.
And I am well aware of leangains- there is a VERY specific protocol that MAY allow you to build muscle on an overall deficit, which requires cycling calories above maintenance. It's not exactly the same as preserving LBM on a deficit. Eating adequate protein and lifting weights minimizes muscle loss while on a deficit. The idea that you CAN'T lose lean mass until you hit 6% or less body fat is stupid.
Thanks for finding this. There are a couple of issues with the study in any event that I am sure you noticed. The main one was the very small sample size. But the ones I am still trying to find is where this reference to 5% is mentioned (except in reference to a minimum % requirement for healthy BF% minimum) plus the study appears to last for only one week so I am not sure where the 8 week reference comes from in the blog. Did you see where these references would have come from within the study? Maybe I am missing them. Or maybe the folks who are citing this blog could answer these questions!
That being said, as you note, this study seems to be contrary to the conclusion reached in the blog.
You have to listen to the pod cast. The 8 weeks a what % they started losing ect... is in the podcast. I didn't actually read the page I just listened to them discussing the study. It does seem to to back him up though.0 -
That's the thing- the blog doesn't reference a study. It draws conclusions about a study without referencing it. And you're drawing conclusions on someone else's conclusions, from facts that haven't been explicitly stated. My interpretation of the blog is different than yours- I think that it's saying that at 3000+ calorie deficit, and low body fat %, you will lose significant muscle. I agree with that- but I don't think you can extrapolate conclusions from the facts given about people losing muscle, who still have body fat to lose, at a more moderate calorie deficit. If you have links to the actual study I would be happy to look at it.
Not trying to be snarky here, but I don't know if you're agreeing with me or arguing by posting this site- it doesn't really have any impact either way on my point. I'm definitely not going to get in to an argument about starvation mode vs. starvation- those discussions always get hung up on semantics and I'm not interested. If you're using a blog where it mentions muscle loss at lower than 6% BF to counter a textbook, I'm not going to argue that either. People can post anything they want in blogs- they're not credible sources.
Check this
That's absurd. Everyone on a deficit loses some muscle- the goal is to preserve it as much as possible. It's impossible to lose 100% fat. I think you're confusing losing muscle with starvation (not starvation mode, true starvation).Because MFP already figures in a reasonable to high calorie deficit when you choose your weight loss goals. If you are shooting to lose 2lbs/wk, and you don't eat back exercise calories, your deficit becomes higher than well established safe limits. You can only lose so much fat in a day, so pushing the boundaries means your additional weight loss beyond a reasonable deficit is going to come from your muscle mass. Not a good choice.
NOT TRUE, you won't start using muscle until your below 6% body fat.
Here's typical weight loss, per my exercise physiology textbook.
http://fitnessblackbook.com/main/starvation-mode-why-you-probably-never-need-to-worry-about-it/
The blog references a study, which shows that you won't lose muscle on a deficit unless you're around 5-6%. Many people can maintain and sometimes increase muscle mass on a cal deficit (especially with methods such as intermittent fasting).
Here's a starting point for you to look for it-
http://www.abstractboard.com/author/Friedl+K/K-Friedl.html
I did some digging and thought I *might* have found the "referenced" study(http://www.ajcn.org/content/83/5/1068.full), but then there's this in the discussion section, which is basically the opposite of the blog author's conclusion:
"With prolonged underfeeding, FFM loss is ≈25% of the weight lost, with fat accounting for the balance, although extreme energy deficits, as in the present study, can increase the contribution of FFM (38). Using less glycogen would tend to decrease protein use for gluconeogenesis and reduce the loss of FFM (38, 39). Women are reported to use less glycogen and excrete less urea nitrogen than men in response to ≈95 min of moderate-intensity exercise (35). The loss of FFM during the FEX was a smaller percentage of body weight loss in the women than in the men."
So, please, if you have the study post it.
You're right the blog didn't reference it, just talked about it. But yeh that's the right study you found.
My point is that- these guys started off not very lean (on average), they had a large cal deficit every day and consistently lost fat without losing muscle until they reached 5-6%. Going against what you said about muscle always being lost when losing fat.
I don't think it is unreasonable to say that this shows that we can lose fat without losing muscle (as that is what happened up until the 8th week when some of the guys hit 5-6% bf). & most people here won't intend to go below 5-6% fat OR be at such an extremely low cal deficit either (which both contributed to the eventual loss in muscle).
Again the army guys only started losing muscle when they were around 5-6%. Before that they maintained muscle whilst losing fat which goes against the point you're making that muscle is always lost when cutting.
With regards to the quote you give- at the end of the study muscle was lost yes due to the severe cal deficit in combination with the low bodyfat %'s, but that doesn't change the fact that the first 8 weeks showed that fat can be lost without muscle being lost.
Anyway there is plenty of anecdotal evidence out there as well of people losing fat and maintaining or even gaining muscle. Some examples can he found here http://www.leangains.com/search/label/Success Stories
You clearly didn't read the study. I did your research for you, I spoon fed you the conclusion, and you still are regurgitating what's in that blog. You can't be bothered to participate in an intelligent conversation, I'm finished with this.
And I am well aware of leangains- there is a VERY specific protocol that MAY allow you to build muscle on an overall deficit, which requires cycling calories above maintenance. It's not exactly the same as preserving LBM on a deficit. Eating adequate protein and lifting weights minimizes muscle loss while on a deficit. The idea that you CAN'T lose lean mass until you hit 6% or less body fat is stupid.
Thanks for finding this. There are a couple of issues with the study in any event that I am sure you noticed. The main one was the very small sample size. But the ones I am still trying to find is where this reference to 5% is mentioned (except in reference to a minimum % requirement for healthy BF% minimum) plus the study appears to last for only one week so I am not sure where the 8 week reference comes from in the blog. Did you see where these references would have come from within the study? Maybe I am missing them. Or maybe the folks who are citing this blog could answer these questions!
That being said, as you note, this study seems to be contrary to the conclusion reached in the blog.
For the reasons you mentioned exactly, either this is the wrong study or the blog author has some inside scoop to information that's not presented in the paper, or the blog author made *kitten* up and figured nobody would check the sources and just cite his blog for the info. There are a few similarities that line up between the blog and the study, but nothing to imply you can't lose LBM above 6% BF. Wonder why the actual reference isn't included in the blog, don't you?0 -
You have to listen to the pod cast. The 8 weeks a what % they started losing ect... is in the podcast. I didn't actually read the page I just listened to them discussing the study. It does seem to to back him up though.
Taking off the infini-quotes. But why is this not in the actual study. How can 8 weeks be used when the actual study was only 1 week. Is the study referred to above not the correct one. Sorry, just trying to understand the gap here. To be honest, I would not use podcasts as a basis for undertanding the details of studies, as I like to look at actual published studies. I will have a go at listening to see if they quote some other study.
ETA: thanks for pointing me to them though.
0 -
Because the more you exercise, the more fuel that your body needs. If you are active, but don't eat enough then your body will think it's starving and hold onto fat instead of burn it. I am super active - I usually burn up to 2000 calories per day and if I don't eat enough then I feel like crap and burn out. The 1200 calorie is the net amount that you should consume. In other words, if I burn 1000 calories than I should eat those calories back AT LEAST. It's okay to have a deficit - I know that I physically cannot consume all the calories that I burn, but you should definitely keep your body well fed and fueled.0
-
I think the solution to this endless debate would be for MFP to work out a clear flaw in its system. In your settings it asks you if you are sedentary, lightly active etc based on your daily occupation when factoring your calorie intake, but it doesn't do that for your workout regimen. I think us skeptics of the eating back would be more comfortable if MFP said based on your activity level you need x amount of calories. Instead it says eat this to meet this goal, and some of us are not willing to deviate from that goal because we had a kick *kitten* day at the gym. If you google eating back exercise calories, like 99 percent of the results are from MFP, clearly this is a flaw with the site since it is not a major issue in other fitness communities.
Again everyone just do what works for you. I personally prefer to eat when I'm hungry as opposed to worrying about estimated burned calories. I don't get the cranky, tired feeling that so many complained about. Though I did get that feeling in the past when I ate the same rich foods in moderation. I will keep using MFP to track my calories and progress, but I'm not drinking the eat your exercise calories back Kool-Aid, but I'm not knocking anyone who does.0 -
You have to listen to the pod cast. The 8 weeks a what % they started losing ect... is in the podcast. I didn't actually read the page I just listened to them discussing the study. It does seem to to back him up though.
Taking off the infini-quotes. But why is this not in the actual study. How can 8 weeks be used when the actual study was only 1 week. Is the study referred to above not the correct one. Sorry, just trying to understand the gap here. To be honest, I would not use podcasts as a basis for undertanding the details of studies, as I like to look at actual published studies. I will have a go at listening to see if they quote some other study.
I can't fill in the gap because I just listened to the pod cast. The study they discussed was 8 weeks and most of the subjects began losing LBM between 6 and 8 weeks.
It was a military study conducted by Carl Friedl. I may look into it further but not tonight.
Also it sounds like the study was not aimed at just finding out when they would start losing LBM but it was aimed more or less at finding out their physical limits under extreme strain.0 -
Because, if I didn't, I'd be running off about 700 calories a day.0
-
I think the solution to this endless debate would be for MFP to work out a clear flaw in its system.
I don't think there's a flaw in the MFP system, I think there's a flaw in the way people think about their bodies. And if people continue to eat/live that way, they will die out, leaving the smarter, healtheir, eatinger segment of the population to thrive.0 -
I think the solution to this endless debate would be for MFP to work out a clear flaw in its system.
I don't think there's a flaw in the MFP system, I think there's a flaw in the way people think about their bodies. And if people continue to eat/live that way, they will die out, leaving the smarter, healtheir, eatinger segment of the population to thrive.
So smarter, heathlier people eat back their exercise calories? Is that the point you are trying to make. Sounds like the only flawed mindset is yours since you think it should apply to all. I believe in different strokes for different folks. Me choosing not to eat back my exercise calories unless I'm hungry does not stop you from doing it or hinder your journey in anyway.
And yes, I think not factoring in workout regimens seems like a flaw to me. Fitday, sparkpeople and weightwatchers all factors in fitness level. MFP does not. I only left Fitday for MFP because there was a group for Jillian Michaels Body Revolution. The fact that this debate isn't raging on in other sites, but is a weekly topic is an indicator that their is a kink in the MFP system.0 -
OK, I hadn't listened to the podcast before- I just listened to it. I understand now much more clearly where this confusion is coming from. The way it's explained in the podcast, I can see where someone might draw the conclusion that above 6% you don't lose LBM, but really that's not what they were saying. They are saying at around 6%BF, under these extreme conditions, the body starts burning almost EXCLUSIVELY muscle, going in to "starvation mode". At that point, only a very small amount of fat is used for fuel, even though there is more fat there. Now, what they didn't say, but the conclusion that is being applied in this discussion, is that above that BF% you can't lose LBM. There is a logic gap there. Just because something is true under certain conditions, does not make the opposite true when those conditions don't apply. Hold on to this nugget of a podcast, and whip it out on a starvation mode thread, where it's conclusions will be applicable.You have to listen to the pod cast. The 8 weeks a what % they started losing ect... is in the podcast. I didn't actually read the page I just listened to them discussing the study. It does seem to to back him up though.
Taking off the infini-quotes. But why is this not in the actual study. How can 8 weeks be used when the actual study was only 1 week. Is the study referred to above not the correct one. Sorry, just trying to understand the gap here. To be honest, I would not use podcasts as a basis for undertanding the details of studies, as I like to look at actual published studies. I will have a go at listening to see if they quote some other study.
I can't fill in the gap because I just listened to the pod cast. The study they discussed was 8 weeks and most of the subjects began losing LBM between 6 and 8 weeks.
It was a military study conducted by Carl Friedl. I may look into it further but not tonight.
Also it sounds like the study was not aimed at just finding out when they would start losing LBM but it was aimed more or less at finding out their physical limits under extreme strain.
Long story short- you can certainly lose muscle and fat above 6%BF. Below 6%BF, your body begins catabolizing muscle preferentially over fat.0 -
I eat back a portion of my exercise calories, if I didn't, my food choices would be more limited. I am steradily losing weight and eating nice food, cooked sensibly.
I have seen diaries on here where the person would barely keep a flea alive, others that seem to live on vitamin pills and shakes.
Yes, it IS their choice, but surely they can't go on like this forever? I found out the hard way that starving myself did not work- sure I lost the weight but as soon as I started to eat reasonable meals it came back on, I got so disappointed, I gave up and ended up heavier than I had ever been.
better to choose the eating lifestyle that you can keep, permanently.
MFP is the best thing that ever happened to me, although I did lose a lot of weight before I discovered it- by changing my food habits to healthy /low fat, and EXERCISE.- and I really love the food diary, and the inspirational posts.0 -
OK, I hadn't listened to the podcast before- I just listened to it. I understand now much more clearly where this confusion is coming from. The way it's explained in the podcast, I can see where someone might draw the conclusion that above 6% you don't lose LBM, but really that's not what they were saying. They are saying at around 6%BF, under these extreme conditions, the body starts burning almost EXCLUSIVELY muscle, going in to "starvation mode". At that point, only a very small amount of fat is used for fuel, even though there is more fat there. Now, what they didn't say, but the conclusion that is being applied in this discussion, is that above that BF% you can't lose LBM. There is a logic gap there. Just because something is true under certain conditions, does not make the opposite true when those conditions don't apply. Hold on to this nugget of a podcast, and whip it out on a starvation mode thread, where it's conclusions will be applicable.You have to listen to the pod cast. The 8 weeks a what % they started losing ect... is in the podcast. I didn't actually read the page I just listened to them discussing the study. It does seem to to back him up though.
Taking off the infini-quotes. But why is this not in the actual study. How can 8 weeks be used when the actual study was only 1 week. Is the study referred to above not the correct one. Sorry, just trying to understand the gap here. To be honest, I would not use podcasts as a basis for undertanding the details of studies, as I like to look at actual published studies. I will have a go at listening to see if they quote some other study.
I can't fill in the gap because I just listened to the pod cast. The study they discussed was 8 weeks and most of the subjects began losing LBM between 6 and 8 weeks.
It was a military study conducted by Carl Friedl. I may look into it further but not tonight.
Also it sounds like the study was not aimed at just finding out when they would start losing LBM but it was aimed more or less at finding out their physical limits under extreme strain.
Long story short- you can certainly lose muscle and fat above 6%BF. Below 6%BF, your body begins catabolizing muscle preferentially over fat.
I got that too. They do mention thought that the loss is pretty negligible up to that point. Unfortunately they don't quantify negligible at all.0 -
You have to listen to the pod cast. The 8 weeks a what % they started losing ect... is in the podcast. I didn't actually read the page I just listened to them discussing the study. It does seem to to back him up though.
Taking off the infini-quotes. But why is this not in the actual study. How can 8 weeks be used when the actual study was only 1 week. Is the study referred to above not the correct one. Sorry, just trying to understand the gap here. To be honest, I would not use podcasts as a basis for undertanding the details of studies, as I like to look at actual published studies. I will have a go at listening to see if they quote some other study.
I can't fill in the gap because I just listened to the pod cast. The study they discussed was 8 weeks and most of the subjects began losing LBM between 6 and 8 weeks.
It was a military study conducted by Carl Friedl. I may look into it further but not tonight.
Also it sounds like the study was not aimed at just finding out when they would start losing LBM but it was aimed more or less at finding out their physical limits under extreme strain.
Edited: MoreBeans worked it out while I was typing and came to the same conclusion that was my initial assumption - at very low levels of BF%, muscle is primarily used for energy - but that does not mean than none gets used above that.0 -
(sigh). To answer your question, its because MFO creates a deficit. I eat over my BMR, & under my TDEE, and eat back MOST and sometimes ALL of my cals, and I'm STILL losing weight. *WOOT WOOT*0
-
This is what I do, set MFP to maintain based on lightly active (I'm not working out an awful lot right now) If I work out, log those, if it creates a deficit of <1200, eat those back. Works for me.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions