Burned Calories, METS and Eating Them Back...

karmasBFF

Sorry if this seems like a ramble but I'm trying to figure this out.
This doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. You're basal metabolic rate is the number of calories you're body burns in order to keep you alive, the amount needed to keep you're heart pumping and organs working. So it makes sense, at least to me, that if you burn 500 calories exercising, and you're recommended daily caloric intake is already set low enough for you to loose 1-2 lbs a week, then that extra 500 would probably push you're body into fat storage mode if you worked out consistently and didn't eat those calories back. This article is trying to say that because we already burn calories at a resting position that we have to subtract those calories from the calories we burn working out. But you aren't at a resting position, and you're heart is presumably beating faster than normal, and you are burning more calories to make that happen. I've been working out hard for the last week, and eating back most of those calories, and I've lost 1 and a half pounds.

Yes, but most of us aren't focusing on our BMR so much as our TDEE (total daily energy expended). This is the amount of calories we burn in a normal day through normal activity (before exercise is factored in). This is also known as 'lifestyle' calories.

My BMR, for example, is 1485. My TDEE is 2042. When we're trying to figure out a deficit for the day, we do so based on our TDEE- or lifestyle calories. So if I sit at a desk all day then go home and wash dishes and cook dinner, then watch tv before going to bed, I'm going to burn 2042. If I slip in a workout, I'm going to burn 600 calories in an hour. However, you also have to consider the calories I would have burned in that hour if I WASN'T working out. That would be about 100, roughly. 600-100=500 is actually the amount of calories I burned through exercise.

The original article makes a good point, but it's really easy to figure out if you know your TDEE and can calculate roughly how many calories per hour you burn while awake. Once you know how many calories per hour you burn on average, you can simply subtract it from the calories burned each hour you exercise to get your 'true' total.

Yes! Of all the theories I have read both here and on other sites, this one seems to make the most sense! And its the only one I have found supporting research for based on the link I posted for University of South Carolina. Why would there be the need to distuinguish METS based on what we burn a day, as well as a formula to determine how many calories we burn based on this theory, if they didnt matter? But the question of whether you eat them back or not still remains unanswered with any supporting evidence!

MercuryBlue

Ok, so if I want to lose 2lbs a week, my calories stay at 1200 whether I work out 0 times or 7 times at 60 minutes...it still says I will only lose 1.9 lbs per week...how is this possible???

This has to do with how many calories you burn in a day. See, MFP will NEVER recommend you eat under 1200 calories. So, say MFP has calculated, based on your information entered, that you burn 1800 calories per day. You need a deficit of 1000 calories per day to lose 2 pounds per week.

So if you enter 'you want to lose 2 pounds per week', mathematically you'd have to eat 800 calories per day. But MFP automatically rounds that up to 1200. MFP also doesn't factor in added exercise calories here because the idea is that, ideally, you'll be eating those calories.

Because I work a desk job, and my activity level is set accordingly (I track my workout calories burned seperate from my lifestyle calories), Even though I have my goals set to 2 pounds per week, I'll never lose that through diet alone simply because I don't burn enough calories without exercise to see a loss like that.

WOW! Great response! This makes things a little clearer now! However, if I burn 2100 calories doing nothing, and I eat 1200, I still need to "burn" an extra 100 calories to make the 1000 calories per day deficit, correct? So why would I eat these back? Doesnt that defeat the purpose!

I am so glad I posted this! I have seen so many of them and it just seems like everyone has an opinion but no one questions or argues the logic...this actually feels like its going somewhere!

If you burn 2100 calories in an average day (TDEE), and you eat 1200, and you 'burn' an extra 100 calories to make the 1000 calorie deficit... then your total calorie intake for the day (or, what your body has to run on) is actually 1100 (1200-100). Meaning you're under the so-called 'safe' 1200 zone, putting yourself at a risk of starvation mode. So the short answer is, focus less on the numbers and more on your health. For some people it's flat-out not healthy to lose 2 pounds per week.

Of course, the long answer is that 1200 isn't a magic number, it's just an average. And many people COULD do just fine on 1100 calories per day and not go into starvation mode. For others, they need a lot MORE than 1200. The only reason I bring up 1200 at all is because this is the default 'safe' number that MFP gives us.

karmasBFF

I think it's because they don't count in any calories you may burn from exercise because if you have someone sign up and say that they're going to do 3 hours of high intensity workouts every day and then in actuality they don't work out at all, then the calories that MFP suggests would end up being way over, and may even cause someone to gain, you know what I mean?

Let's say running for 3 hours would burn 1500 calories. And let's say this person wants to lose 1 lb a week. If MFP added the 1500 calories in that would potentially be burned from running, most people's calorie goals would end up being around 3,000, which would cause a person who was actually not running at all to gain weight.

I think they must just ask you in the beginning in order to allow you to set some exercise goals.

I said I was going to work out 5 days a week for 45 mins and my calories burned goal was 314 calories. thats way less than I burn daily. Go onto you're goals and check for this if you're concerned but if they only figured in 314 calories for that much time spent exercising I just dont think thats it

This leads me back to the article that I initially posted. My HRH always says I burn soooo many more than MFP. But could that be because MFP is using METS and my HRM is not? I enter the same information in my HRM as I did on MFP...so they should be the same, ideally-correct? Well, they are not!

To answer this question, MFP uses values entered by its members. This means someone, somewhere, burned that many calories doing that exercise. It's not really based on anything, other than data entered by someone at some point. For this reason, it's better to go by what your HRM says and not what MFP says.

I agree with this! But now the question comes in, do I count the actual reading or the reading minus what I would have burned based on my TDEE? I would imagine it should be subtracted. I say this because if I left my HRM calculating all day, it would say I burned about 2000 calories or so, right? But this doesn't mean I can enter those into my Excercise log to eat because then I would essentially be eating the same as before???? I know I burn calories picking up my kids, walking up my front stairs, cooking dinner- but I dont count these because I have ALWAYS burned these calories. I only count those that are directly linked to my efforts.

But, still, do we eat those back? Based on everything I've read that is not on blogs or foums, it states no because this is how you create a deficit without lacking the number of calories your body needs to function. Otherwise, the working out would be in vain because the deficit I created would diminish by excess eating. Does this make sense?

LittleSpy

Ok, so if I want to lose 2lbs a week, my calories stay at 1200 whether I work out 0 times or 7 times at 60 minutes...it still says I will only lose 1.9 lbs per week...how is this possible???

Because it's assuming you're going to eat 100% of your exercise calories. MFP doesn't count exercise as adding to your calorie deficit. Your calorie deficit is set up automatically through your base calories (1200). If you exercised and burned 500 calories, MFP assumes you're going to eat 500 extra calories. So, your deficit hasn't increased at all.

I think that's why a lot of people suggest only eating 1/2 of your exercise calories back.

That, and I've also heard it suggested that since your metabolism is boosted temporarily by exercise even AFTER you're finished exercising, you kind of already make up for any calories that are double counted as burned through exercise and through daily activity.

karmasBFF

Ok, so if I want to lose 2lbs a week, my calories stay at 1200 whether I work out 0 times or 7 times at 60 minutes...it still says I will only lose 1.9 lbs per week...how is this possible???

This has to do with how many calories you burn in a day. See, MFP will NEVER recommend you eat under 1200 calories. So, say MFP has calculated, based on your information entered, that you burn 1800 calories per day. You need a deficit of 1000 calories per day to lose 2 pounds per week.

So if you enter 'you want to lose 2 pounds per week', mathematically you'd have to eat 800 calories per day. But MFP automatically rounds that up to 1200. MFP also doesn't factor in added exercise calories here because the idea is that, ideally, you'll be eating those calories.

Because I work a desk job, and my activity level is set accordingly (I track my workout calories burned seperate from my lifestyle calories), Even though I have my goals set to 2 pounds per week, I'll never lose that through diet alone simply because I don't burn enough calories without exercise to see a loss like that.

WOW! Great response! This makes things a little clearer now! However, if I burn 2100 calories doing nothing, and I eat 1200, I still need to "burn" an extra 100 calories to make the 1000 calories per day deficit, correct? So why would I eat these back? Doesnt that defeat the purpose!

I am so glad I posted this! I have seen so many of them and it just seems like everyone has an opinion but no one questions or argues the logic...this actually feels like its going somewhere!

If you burn 2100 calories in an average day (TDEE), and you eat 1200, and you 'burn' an extra 100 calories to make the 1000 calorie deficit... then your total calorie intake for the day (or, what your body has to run on) is actually 1100 (1200-100). Meaning you're under the so-called 'safe' 1200 zone, putting yourself at a risk of starvation mode. So the short answer is, focus less on the numbers and more on your health. For some people it's flat-out not healthy to lose 2 pounds per week.

Of course, the long answer is that 1200 isn't a magic number, it's just an average. And many people COULD do just fine on 1100 calories per day and not go into starvation mode. For others, they need a lot MORE than 1200. The only reason I bring up 1200 at all is because this is the default 'safe' number that MFP gives us.

How do we determine that the calories we burn are coming from what we eat versus what we already have stored?

karmasBFF

Because it's assuming you're going to eat 100% of your exercise calories. MFP doesn't count exercise as adding to your calorie deficit. Your calorie deficit is set up automatically through your base calories (1200). If you exercised and burned 500 calories, MFP assumes you're going to eat 500 extra calories. So, your deficit hasn't increased at all.

Isn't that pointless, though? I thought the point was to increase your deficit???

MTGirl

I'm not going to enter into the MET/calories burned issue, but I will clarify how MFP works.

MFP calculates your daily calories needed based on your gender, age, weight and activity level chosen when you sign up. You put in how much you are going to work out for your goals on your exercise log. MFP does not take that into account when alloting daily calories. The exercise calories are added in when you actually log the exercise. You should choose your activity level based on what you do excluding exercise. Then add in your exercise for the additional calories

MFP is set up to have you eat all those earned exercise calories. It is a good idea to try it the way it is set up first - at least give it a shot, knowing that there is already a deficit built in. It works for a lot of people, however, some can only eat 1/2 of their exercise calories and some can really not eat any. You do want to make sure you don't put yourself into starvation mode - you will lose fast to begin then stall out completely. It takes some experimenting and changing, but it can be done!

Thank you for sharing! One question: how do you know it is set up to eat your excercise calories? Knowing this would really put me soooo much closer to feeling comfortable with eating them!

Your daily calorie intake allotment already has you set at a 500 or 1000 calorie deficit. Based on what you put in when you signed up that you wanted to lose. 500 for 1 lb per week, 750 for 1.5, 1000 for 2 lbs per week. However, it will not let you go below 1200. So, in my case to lose 1 lb per week MFP set me at 1610 cal/day. If I don't do anything exercise wise and eat 1610 calories per day I should lose 1 lb per week. (not accounting for any hormonal/physical problems I may have - MFP doesn't know any of that) If I exercise and burn 400 calories and only consume the 1610 - my deficit would be 900 calories. I may be able to handle that, but I may now depending on lots of things. If I go that low, I lose like crazy for a week or 2 then won't lose even an ounce. That is starvation mode. And it slows your metabolism down. That is the reasoning behind eating your exercise calories - because the deficit is already built in and if you go to low, your body won't burn fat efficiently. HTH!

edited to add: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/61706-guide-to-calorie-deficits This is an awesome post - will help explain it better!

karmasBFF

I'm not going to enter into the MET/calories burned issue, but I will clarify how MFP works.

MFP calculates your daily calories needed based on your gender, age, weight and activity level chosen when you sign up. You put in how much you are going to work out for your goals on your exercise log. MFP does not take that into account when alloting daily calories. The exercise calories are added in when you actually log the exercise. You should choose your activity level based on what you do excluding exercise. Then add in your exercise for the additional calories

MFP is set up to have you eat all those earned exercise calories. It is a good idea to try it the way it is set up first - at least give it a shot, knowing that there is already a deficit built in. It works for a lot of people, however, some can only eat 1/2 of their exercise calories and some can really not eat any. You do want to make sure you don't put yourself into starvation mode - you will lose fast to begin then stall out completely. It takes some experimenting and changing, but it can be done!

Thank you for sharing! One question: how do you know it is set up to eat your excercise calories? Knowing this would really put me soooo much closer to feeling comfortable with eating them!

Your daily calorie intake allotment already has you set at a 500 or 1000 calorie deficit. Based on what you put in when you signed up that you wanted to lose. 500 for 1 lb per week, 750 for 1.5, 1000 for 2 lbs per week. However, it will not let you go below 1200. So, in my case to lose 1 lb per week MFP set me at 1610 cal/day. If I don't do anything exercise wise and eat 1610 calories per day I should lose 1 lb per week. (not accounting for any hormonal/physical problems I may have - MFP doesn't know any of that) If I exercise and burn 400 calories and only consume the 1610 - my deficit would be 900 calories. I may be able to handle that, but I may now depending on lots of things. If I go that low, I lose like crazy for a week or 2 then won't lose even an ounce. That is starvation mode. And it slows your metabolism down. That is the reasoning behind eating your exercise calories - because the deficit is already built in and if you go to low, your body won't burn fat efficiently. HTH!

edited to add: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/61706-guide-to-calorie-deficits This is an awesome post - will help explain it better!

This makes a lot of sense.

Today, on my food diary (it is public), I ate exactly 1200 calories. When I closed my day, I did not get a warning that I am not eating enough calories. If it is the net calories that counts, why didn't the warning come up, given I did not eat my 158 excercise calories? I know its a "dummy" platform, but I think its a valid question. If MFP promotes healthy weight loss and the deficit is already accounted for, and I do NOT get a warning when not eating my excercise calories, doesn't that translate to losing more weight quicker?

karmasBFF

Please dont take my billion questions as a sign of argument or debate. I am just sooo dedicated and I want to do this right!

I see how it says the number of calories it gives you are net based on after excercise. and it states the more you excercise the more you can eat. However, is the warning not coming up a fluke, something missed by the creator of MFP?

MercuryBlue

Please dont take my billion questions as a sign of argument or debate. I am just sooo dedicated and I want to do this right!

I see how it says the number of calories it gives you are net based on after excercise. and it states the more you excercise the more you can eat. However, is the warning not coming up a fluke, something missed by the creator of MFP?

I don't have an answer for this. I've noticed it myself and wondered the same thing. You would think that, when you closed your food diary for the day and hadn't eaten your exercise calories, you'd get a message similar to the one you get if you eat under 1200 calories.

karmasBFF

This article is from the very reputable Mayo Clinic, and my a Registered Dietician. It clearly sites that burned calories incite quicker weight loss, which is essentially where I am trying to go with all of this:



Can I lose weight if my only exercise is walking?

Answer from Katherine Zeratsky, R.D., L.D.

You might be able to lose weight that way, depending on the duration and intensity of your walking and what your diet's like. But consuming fewer calories through dietary changes seems to promote weight loss more effectively than does exercise and physical activity.

That's not to say physical activity such as walking isn't important for weight control — it is. The key to weight loss is burning more calories than you consume. Because 3,500 calories equals about 1 pound (0.45 kilogram) of fat, you need to burn 3,500 calories more than you take in to lose 1 pound of fatty tissue. So if you cut 500 calories from your typical diet each day, you'd lose about 1 pound a week (500 calories x 7 days = 3,500 calories).

If you add 30 minutes of brisk walking to your daily routine, you could burn about 150 more calories a day. At that rate, you'd lose about another 1/3 of a pound (0.15 kilogram) a week. The more you walk and the quicker your pace, the more calories you'll burn. While any physical activity is good, you'll get the most benefit in terms of weight loss from activity that is moderately intense. So aim to walk at 3 to 4 miles per hour. You can gradually build up to that pace if necessary.

Once you've lost weight, exercise is even more important — it's what helps keep the weight off, even more so than calorie restriction. In fact, studies show that people who maintain their weight loss over the long term get regular physical activity. So keep walking, but make sure you also follow a healthy diet.

MTGirl

I'm not going to enter into the MET/calories burned issue, but I will clarify how MFP works.

MFP calculates your daily calories needed based on your gender, age, weight and activity level chosen when you sign up. You put in how much you are going to work out for your goals on your exercise log. MFP does not take that into account when alloting daily calories. The exercise calories are added in when you actually log the exercise. You should choose your activity level based on what you do excluding exercise. Then add in your exercise for the additional calories

MFP is set up to have you eat all those earned exercise calories. It is a good idea to try it the way it is set up first - at least give it a shot, knowing that there is already a deficit built in. It works for a lot of people, however, some can only eat 1/2 of their exercise calories and some can really not eat any. You do want to make sure you don't put yourself into starvation mode - you will lose fast to begin then stall out completely. It takes some experimenting and changing, but it can be done!

Thank you for sharing! One question: how do you know it is set up to eat your excercise calories? Knowing this would really put me soooo much closer to feeling comfortable with eating them!

Your daily calorie intake allotment already has you set at a 500 or 1000 calorie deficit. Based on what you put in when you signed up that you wanted to lose. 500 for 1 lb per week, 750 for 1.5, 1000 for 2 lbs per week. However, it will not let you go below 1200. So, in my case to lose 1 lb per week MFP set me at 1610 cal/day. If I don't do anything exercise wise and eat 1610 calories per day I should lose 1 lb per week. (not accounting for any hormonal/physical problems I may have - MFP doesn't know any of that) If I exercise and burn 400 calories and only consume the 1610 - my deficit would be 900 calories. I may be able to handle that, but I may now depending on lots of things. If I go that low, I lose like crazy for a week or 2 then won't lose even an ounce. That is starvation mode. And it slows your metabolism down. That is the reasoning behind eating your exercise calories - because the deficit is already built in and if you go to low, your body won't burn fat efficiently. HTH!

edited to add: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/61706-guide-to-calorie-deficits This is an awesome post - will help explain it better!

This makes a lot of sense.

Today, on my food diary (it is public), I ate exactly 1200 calories. When I closed my day, I did not get a warning that I am not eating enough calories. If it is the net calories that counts, why didn't the warning come up, given I did not eat my 158 excercise calories? I know its a "dummy" platform, but I think its a valid question. If MFP promotes healthy weight loss and the deficit is already accounted for, and I do NOT get a warning when not eating my excercise calories, doesn't that translate to losing more weight quicker?

If not eating your exercise calories put you under the 1200 threshold, it should have thrown up that warning. Hmmm - I guess the system's not perfect after all:laugh: It can't be perfect, but you know what I mean! I hope. Also keep in mind that if you are very small, you may be able to go below 1200 without causing harm, but MFP can't make those decisions. However, we are free to accept or ignore warnings. What you won't be able to ignore is how your body responds to the choices you make. Then you have to take that input and make adjustments to your choices :flowerforyou:

And, please, ask all the questions you need to. There are also lots of old posts you can read that have great information. You can't learn and make good decisions if you don't have information!

karmasBFF

Here is another by a Licensed Professional that seems to be on the same track as the R.D. in the last article I posted.

Question
Weight loss: Better to cut calories or exercise more?Which is better for weight loss — cutting calories or increasing exercise?
Answer
from Donald Hensrud, M.D.
"Consuming fewer calories through dietary changes seems to promote weight loss more effectively than does exercise and physical activity. But physical activity is also important in weight control.

The key to weight loss is burning more calories than you consume. Because 3,500 calories equals about 1 pound (0.45 kilogram) of fat, you need to burn 3,500 calories more than you take in to lose 1 pound. So if you cut 500 calories from your typical diet each day, you'd lose about 1 pound a week (500 calories x 7 days = 3,500 calories).

Exercise plus calorie restriction can help give you the weight-loss edge. Exercise can help burn off the excess calories you can't cut through diet alone. Exercise also offers numerous health benefits, including boosting your mood, strengthening your cardiovascular system and reducing your blood pressure.

Exercise can also help in maintaining weight loss. Studies show that people who maintain their weight loss over the long term get regular physical activity. In contrast, people who lose weight by crash dieting or by drastically reducing their calories to 400 to 800 a day are likely to regain weight quickly, often within six months after they stop dieting."


This is just my opinion but it seems to me the most logical way to handle this is to NOT eat your excercise calories, but know they are there if you need to eat. I also think we need to determine the DIFFERENCE between what we burn when we excercise and what we burn through our normal activities...

I guess we may never get to a real answer, given this is all independent research, and I just want to say thank you for all of your help! I really feel comfortable with the approach I am taking and it is thanks to your opinions, links, theories and research. Thank you for dealing with my ranting!

karmasBFF

I'm not going to enter into the MET/calories burned issue, but I will clarify how MFP works.

MFP calculates your daily calories needed based on your gender, age, weight and activity level chosen when you sign up. You put in how much you are going to work out for your goals on your exercise log. MFP does not take that into account when alloting daily calories. The exercise calories are added in when you actually log the exercise. You should choose your activity level based on what you do excluding exercise. Then add in your exercise for the additional calories

MFP is set up to have you eat all those earned exercise calories. It is a good idea to try it the way it is set up first - at least give it a shot, knowing that there is already a deficit built in. It works for a lot of people, however, some can only eat 1/2 of their exercise calories and some can really not eat any. You do want to make sure you don't put yourself into starvation mode - you will lose fast to begin then stall out completely. It takes some experimenting and changing, but it can be done!

Thank you for sharing! One question: how do you know it is set up to eat your excercise calories? Knowing this would really put me soooo much closer to feeling comfortable with eating them!

Your daily calorie intake allotment already has you set at a 500 or 1000 calorie deficit. Based on what you put in when you signed up that you wanted to lose. 500 for 1 lb per week, 750 for 1.5, 1000 for 2 lbs per week. However, it will not let you go below 1200. So, in my case to lose 1 lb per week MFP set me at 1610 cal/day. If I don't do anything exercise wise and eat 1610 calories per day I should lose 1 lb per week. (not accounting for any hormonal/physical problems I may have - MFP doesn't know any of that) If I exercise and burn 400 calories and only consume the 1610 - my deficit would be 900 calories. I may be able to handle that, but I may now depending on lots of things. If I go that low, I lose like crazy for a week or 2 then won't lose even an ounce. That is starvation mode. And it slows your metabolism down. That is the reasoning behind eating your exercise calories - because the deficit is already built in and if you go to low, your body won't burn fat efficiently. HTH!

edited to add: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/61706-guide-to-calorie-deficits This is an awesome post - will help explain it better!

This makes a lot of sense.

Today, on my food diary (it is public), I ate exactly 1200 calories. When I closed my day, I did not get a warning that I am not eating enough calories. If it is the net calories that counts, why didn't the warning come up, given I did not eat my 158 excercise calories? I know its a "dummy" platform, but I think its a valid question. If MFP promotes healthy weight loss and the deficit is already accounted for, and I do NOT get a warning when not eating my excercise calories, doesn't that translate to losing more weight quicker?

If not eating your exercise calories put you under the 1200 threshold, it should have thrown up that warning. Hmmm - I guess the system's not perfect after all:laugh: It can't be perfect, but you know what I mean! I hope. Also keep in mind that if you are very small, you may be able to go below 1200 without causing harm, but MFP can't make those decisions. However, we are free to accept or ignore warnings. What you won't be able to ignore is how your body responds to the choices you make. Then you have to take that input and make adjustments to your choices :flowerforyou:

And, please, ask all the questions you need to. There are also lots of old posts you can read that have great information. You can't learn and make good decisions if you don't have information!

Thank you! I think I am going to conduct a little experiment over the next month. I am not going to eat my calories (or at least try not to! LOL) and add that into my deficit of eaten calories, only after I have subtracted the difference between my HRM and my TDEE; Math is math, right? If I lose a lb for every 3500 calorie deficit, that should support whether or not you should eat your calories and whether they should be counted based on your HRM or METS.

Thanks again!

MTGirl

Good luck with your experiment - I'll be interested to see how it goes! I've been eating most of my calories since mid Jan and have lost 5 lbs now. (again) I have about 1 more to lose before it starts showing on my ticker. (I gained everything I lost last year +5. Don't do that - not worth it :flowerforyou: )

karmasBFF

Good luck with your experiment - I'll be interested to see how it goes! I've been eating most of my calories since mid Jan and have lost 5 lbs now. (again) I have about 1 more to lose before it starts showing on my ticker. (I gained everything I lost last year +5. Don't do that - not worth it :flowerforyou: )

You'll do great!

How would you feel about being the counterpart of my experiment? You eat all of your excercise calories (or most) and see how your weight loss compares to the deficit. By no means do I mean a competition (my will power is not strong enough for that! LOL) but just something to support either argument?

Let me know what you think!

Of course, this is open to all that have been begging this question for as long as I have!

MTGirl

Good luck with your experiment - I'll be interested to see how it goes! I've been eating most of my calories since mid Jan and have lost 5 lbs now. (again) I have about 1 more to lose before it starts showing on my ticker. (I gained everything I lost last year +5. Don't do that - not worth it :flowerforyou: )

You'll do great!

How would you feel about being the counterpart of my experiment? You eat all of your excercise calories (or most) and see how your weight loss compares to the deficit. By no means do I mean a competition (my will power is not strong enough for that! LOL) but just something to support either argument?

Let me know what you think!

Of course, this is open to all that have been begging this question for as long as I have!

Well, I eat some of my exercise calories :laugh: Because I have a thyroid problem, I do best if I leave about 200 calories on the table according to MFP's calculations. Maybe someone will be the full exercise calorie consumer to your no exercise calorie consumption :laugh: But I would like to track with you and see how it works for you!

karmasBFF

Good luck with your experiment - I'll be interested to see how it goes! I've been eating most of my calories since mid Jan and have lost 5 lbs now. (again) I have about 1 more to lose before it starts showing on my ticker. (I gained everything I lost last year +5. Don't do that - not worth it :flowerforyou: )

You'll do great!

How would you feel about being the counterpart of my experiment? You eat all of your excercise calories (or most) and see how your weight loss compares to the deficit. By no means do I mean a competition (my will power is not strong enough for that! LOL) but just something to support either argument?

Let me know what you think!

Of course, this is open to all that have been begging this question for as long as I have!

Well, I eat some of my exercise calories :laugh: Because I have a thyroid problem, I do best if I leave about 200 calories on the table according to MFP's calculations. Maybe someone will be the full exercise calorie consumer to your no exercise calorie consumption :laugh: But I would like to track with you and see how it works for you!

Great! I am looking over my reports over the last 30 days and it seems my weight loss came in more before I was logging excercise calories, which means I obviously wasnt eating them! LOL But it was also the beginning and most of that could have been water weight! Either way, let's do this!

fozzy33

Wow lots of posts on this and questions and debates! LOL!!!!

Im just gonna throw in my 2 cents....

My Calorie intake is set at 1360 by MFP....for the past two weeks ive been eating ALL my exercise calories...usuallly 650 per day which puts me at 2010 calories a day...Ive been averaging 1950-2000 the past two weeks or so...ive had my higher days too. I have been at 173lbs for two weeks i have not gained or lost an ounce maintaining this 2000 calories a day deal LOL....

So the next two weeks Im going to eat only HALF my exercise calories plus my 1360 which would put me at 1660 per day. Im going to see if this helps me any.

Michelle

MTGirl

Wow lots of posts on this and questions and debates! LOL!!!!

Im just gonna throw in my 2 cents....

My Calorie intake is set at 1360 by MFP....for the past two weeks ive been eating ALL my exercise calories...usuallly 650 per day which puts me at 2010 calories a day...Ive been averaging 1950-2000 the past two weeks or so...ive had my higher days too. I have been at 173lbs for two weeks i have not gained or lost an ounce maintaining this 2000 calories a day deal LOL....

So the next two weeks Im going to eat only HALF my exercise calories plus my 1360 which would put me at 1660 per day. Im going to see if this helps me any.

Michelle

That's reasonable Michelle. Give it 2 - 4 weeks and see what happens. Hopefully you'll have hit on your magic formula! Congrats on your loss so far - halfway there!