Burned Calories, METS and Eating Them Back...

mrsbeck

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?

No, because you ate 1200 calories. The warning only comes up when you drop below 1200.

mrsbeck

Also, keep in mind that it may take two or three weeks for a change in either diet or exercise to be reflected in weight gain and loss. Your body doesn't just switch from one mode to another...things work more gradually than that.

I eat almost all of my exercise calories, and when I'm sticking to the program I average 2-4 lbs lost per week. That's a little fast for healthy weight loss, so I try to make sure I'm eating a balanced diet and incorporating lots of exercise into my life, so that I don't suddenly start gaining when I go to maintenance.

When I say "almost" all of my calories, what I mean is this: When I finish exercising, and check my HRM, I subtract ten percent from the total calories burned, and that's the number I record. I'm sure it doesn't cover all of those "background" calories, but I think it probably comes close enough, particularly since I tend to overestimate portion sizes when I enter my food. I'm not interested in spending my life doing mathematical formulas every time I exercise, to figure out the MET. I don't think that's a sustainable lifestyle at all.

What you should try to remember, is that you start with a calorie deficit. The calorie goal that MFP gives you is minus 500 or 1000, depending on whether you want one or two pounds of weight loss a week. So even without any exercise at all, you are set up to lose weight. And if your deficit is set high enough that your calorie goal ends up at 1200, and you burn 500 through exercise and don't eat any of it back, you end up with a net of 700 calories, which eventually will make your body say "Holy Cylons, a frakkin' famine!!!" There is a thread around here somewhere about a woman who was obese on 700 calories a day.

Starving yourself isn't going to teach you sustainable, lifelong habits, and while it may lead to a thinner you, it won't lead to a healthier you.

Also, I'm sorry if there is a little bit of a tone to this post. I think this is the fifth or sixth conversation of this nature I've seen just today, and it seems like the info in the sticky posts should cover this, if people would read them. Weight loss isn't a sprint, and you do yourself no favors by trying to hurry the process along. It's a marathon, people.

stormieweather

Most of these articles don't apply precisely to MFP, because MFP builds in a deficit automatically. A lot of experts are assuming that you are eating the same as usual (at maintenance or higher), therefore, to lose weight...you work out and do NOT eat back the exercise calories.

What I've gathered from MFP is that the goal is sustained weight loss. If you learn healthy eating habits while you're losing, it won't be hard to maintain your goal weight. If you starve yourself to lose the weight, however, as soon as you begin to eat again (and you most definitely will), you'll gain it ALL back...plus! Too large of a deficit cannot be adhered to on a long term basis.

Boils down to...do you want quick or do you want healthy?

kalmf

I have really enjoyed this thread, it's so feisty. And mathematical - who knew they could co-exist! The reality for me is that I want to be in it for the long haul, and I also want the initial rush of seeing the scale dropping.:sad:

I've been doing really well since I joined at the beginning of January - from 145 to 133, while eating all my calories including exercise cals. every day, going over on some but never ridiculously. I've been focusing on conscious eating and moving every day but I know I'm way too focused on the number on the scale. I don't think I'll sustain this level of loss as I get closer to my goal weight - it has to slow down - which is a little scary.

K

karmasBFF

Most of these articles don't apply precisely to MFP, because MFP builds in a deficit automatically. A lot of experts are assuming that you are eating the same as usual (at maintenance or higher), therefore, to lose weight...you work out and do NOT eat back the exercise calories.

What I've gathered from MFP is that the goal is sustained weight loss. If you learn healthy eating habits while you're losing, it won't be hard to maintain your goal weight. If you starve yourself to lose the weight, however, as soon as you begin to eat again (and you most definitely will), you'll gain it ALL back...plus! Too large of a deficit cannot be adhered to on a long term basis.

Boils down to...do you want quick or do you want healthy?

This does make sense. However, if you look at my diary, I eat very well. I have learned which foods are good to eat to actually feel like you are eating and not giving anything up, all the while staying healthy and losing weight. Once I get to my goal weight, I will not begin to eat differently, I actually enjoy the foods I am eating now sooo much more than the greasy burgers and french fries loaded with ketchup and a liter of pop! UGH! Sure, I crave it sometimes but really, when I give in, its just aweful! Definitely not satisfying!

According to MFP, I burn 2150 calories throughout normal daily activity; as long as I do not surpass this, I will lose. I realize that this number definitely fluctuates with my weight and health, but so long as I do not surpass it, with or without excercise, I do not see how its possible to gain wait. Mathermatically, you cannot.

I do want this for the long term, but I do not think getting there faster is a flawed concept so long as I am eating healthy, mainitaining my caloric intake at a safe level and working out. And wanting it quickly does not necessarily reflect that I have lost sight of longevity.

In the end, everybody's body is different and what works for me may not work for anyone else. So long as we lose weight and learn to live differently, especially referring to our relationship with food, I think we are all still on the same great path!

LittleSpy

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???

No, the point is to increase your cardiovascular strength and metabolism. You can certainly lose all the weight you want to lose through diet alone. But you may not look very good or feel very good when you get there. If you're not already eating at a calorie deficit, then yes, absolutely, exercise can be used to create a deficit. Or, if you're obese or severely overweight, exercise can most likely safely be used to create a larger deficit. In SHBoss's posts, you'll see him time and time again explain that the rules are very different for the obese and severely overweight when compared to people at "healthy" weights. You'll also see him explain (so patiently!) time and time again that everyone is different. It's important to equip yourself with knowledge and be aware of the risks of creating too much of a calorie deficit. I think that's the reason all the people run screaming warnings of "starvation mode." However, if you've taken the time and effort to educate yourself and you choose to do it (potentially dangerous calorie deficit) anyway, that's your choice. It's possible a huge deficit may work for you and it's also possible it may damage your metabolism and ultimately, your health. But if you're aware of that, then go forward and do whatever you want to do.

I'm ultimately doing this for health reasons -- not to fit into a size 4. That's not to say my reason is better than another person's reason. It's just the reason I say what I say.

imagymrat

Holy good crap i'm sooo confused! lol....I zigzag my calories on a 5 day cycle, btw 1200 and 1900 calories, I exercise 2.5 hours a day, raveraging 720 calories per workout burned....the whole eating your calories thing confuses the heck outta me, but this works for me. My body is leaner and healthier since I started to zigzag, I found myself in a plateau when I tried to keep a consistent calorie goal each day, just my eperience and what worked well for me.

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???

No, the point is to increase your cardiovascular strength and metabolism. You can certainly lose all the weight you want to lose through diet alone. But you may not look very good or feel very good when you get there. If you're not already eating at a calorie deficit, then yes, absolutely, exercise can be used to create a deficit. Or, if you're obese of severely overweight, exercise can most likely safely be used to create a larger deficit.

I'm ultimately doing this for health reasons -- not to fit into a size 4.

Quite frankly, the point of this site is to lose weight; some people do it for health, others to fit into a size 4. Either way, you have to maintain a healthy weight in order to do both. So, regardless of each person's individual reasoning, a deficit is required. Having said that, this is what I mean by the process being pointless-if the formula is current caloric intake - reduced caloric intake - caloric burn, why eat the calories? For me, that doesn't make sense. Maybe I am missing something, but logically, I don't see how that would not hinder the progress. Any thoughts?

LittleSpy

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???

No, the point is to increase your cardiovascular strength and metabolism. You can certainly lose all the weight you want to lose through diet alone. But you may not look very good or feel very good when you get there. If you're not already eating at a calorie deficit, then yes, absolutely, exercise can be used to create a deficit. Or, if you're obese of severely overweight, exercise can most likely safely be used to create a larger deficit.

I'm ultimately doing this for health reasons -- not to fit into a size 4.

Quite frankly, the point of this site is to lose weight; some people do it for health, others to fit into a size 4. Either way, you have to maintain a healthy weight in order to do both. So, regardless of each person's individual reasoning, a deficit is required. Having said that, this is what I mean by the process being pointless-if the formula is current caloric intake - reduced caloric intake - caloric burn, why eat the calories? For me, that doesn't make sense. Maybe I am missing something, but logically, I don't see how that would not hinder the progress. Any thoughts?

1st read my edits

2nd - the point is that it's very possible that if a person eats 1200 calories a day and then exercises to burn 800 calories and nets only 400 calories a day, their body is going to start conserving as much fat as possible and start consuming muscle mass and shutting down body functions to conserve energy.
It's not a "mathematical impossibility" to be at a 1000, 2000, or 3000 calorie deficit and not lose weight. It's not just calories in vs. calories out. Our bodies are way more complex than that.
Read this:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing

karmasBFF

Holy good crap i'm sooo confused! lol....I zigzag my calories on a 5 day cycle, btw 1200 and 1900 calories, I exercise 2.5 hours a day, raveraging 720 calories per workout burned....the whole eating your calories thing confuses the heck outta me, but this works for me. My body is leaner and healthier since I started to zigzag, I found myself in a plateau when I tried to keep a consistent calorie goal each day, just my eperience and what worked well for me.

Hmmm, interesting concept! How do you mean zig zag? Do you mean you just fluctuate your intake between that range or do you have a specific goal each of the 5 days?

So on the days you work out and burn 720 calories, is the 1200 calories calculated AFTER you eat 1900 calories or after you eat 1200 (or any number in that range)? I hope I didnt confuse you further. This is just really important to me. I want to make a lifestyle change, not just lose 80lbs and go back to normal. Given that its forever, I have to do my best to learn it the right way!

LittleSpy

The reason I make note of why I'm trying to lose weight (for health, mainly. image is, of course, a nice bonus) is that there's a healthy way to lose weight and an unhealthy way to lose weight.

Creating a deficit that is too big for your body to deal with is an unhealthy way to lose weight.
Creating a smaller deficit and changing your lifestyle forever to include healthy foods and exercise is a healthy way to lose weight.

karmasBFF

The reason I make note of why I'm trying to lose weight (for health, mainly. image is, of course, a nice bonus) is that there's a healthy way to lose weight and an unhealthy way to lose weight.

Creating a deficit that is too big for your body to deal with is an unhealthy way to lose weight.
Creating a smaller deficit and changing your lifestyle forever to include healthy foods and exercise is a healthy way to lose weight.

I guess I am having a hard time siding with eating your excercise calories is because I have yet to find evidence from a reputable source that supports this. I have done a lot of research in the past few days and all the information that I find is from blogs or forums, which like this one, are all a matter of opinion, independent research and misinformation (sometimes). I was hoping someone could offer concrete evidence to support either argument so we can all become educated by research.

I also cannot find anything that says where the calories you burn come from. Do they come from the foods we eat or the fat we store? It would seem logical that they come from the food we eat. But what about the concept that once we are out of a healthy HR range, we stop burning fat and start burning muscle. The energy of fat is calories, which stands to say if we burn fat when we excercise within our HR range, then the calories we burn do not take from the food we eat, but rather what is already in our bodies. Does this make sense?

stormieweather

In order to find a reputable source that supports this, you'd need to first explain to them that MFP automatically calculates a healthy deficit for you. AFTER you have done so, then ask them what to do regarding eating back your exercise calories.

If you want an accurate answer, you need to supply all of the facts.

Research ghrelin, leptin and cortisol also, because the body is a hugely complex organism. .

karmasBFF

In order to find a reputable source that supports this, you'd need to first explain to them that MFP automatically calculates a healthy deficit for you. AFTER you have done so, then ask them what to do regarding eating back your exercise calories.

If you want an accurate answer, you need to supply all of the facts.

Great point! I would imagine its assumed that you are watching what you eat when you are trying to lose weight, so a deficit is imminent. I guess its up to you to reiterate to the person you are asking to assure they keep that in mind!

I haven't really asked anyone, doing most of my research online. I will keep looking and see what else I can find supporting both sides.

Thanks!

LittleSpy

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???

No, the point is to increase your cardiovascular strength and metabolism. You can certainly lose all the weight you want to lose through diet alone. But you may not look very good or feel very good when you get there. If you're not already eating at a calorie deficit, then yes, absolutely, exercise can be used to create a deficit. Or, if you're obese of severely overweight, exercise can most likely safely be used to create a larger deficit.

I'm ultimately doing this for health reasons -- not to fit into a size 4.

Quite frankly, the point of this site is to lose weight; some people do it for health, others to fit into a size 4. Either way, you have to maintain a healthy weight in order to do both. So, regardless of each person's individual reasoning, a deficit is required. Having said that, this is what I mean by the process being pointless-if the formula is current caloric intake - reduced caloric intake - caloric burn, why eat the calories? For me, that doesn't make sense. Maybe I am missing something, but logically, I don't see how that would not hinder the progress. Any thoughts?

1st read my edits

2nd - the point is that it's very possible that if a person eats 1200 calories a day and then exercises to burn 800 calories and nets only 400 calories a day, their body is going to start conserving as much fat as possible and start consuming muscle mass and shutting down body functions to conserve energy.
It's not a "mathematical impossibility" to be at a 1000, 2000, or 3000 calorie deficit and not lose weight. It's not just calories in vs. calories out. Our bodies are way more complex than that.
Read this:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing

I think you missed this post I posted earlier

karmasBFF

"How Healthy Weight Loss Works -- Following USDA Guidelines." 12 December 2006. HowStuffWorks.com. <http://health.howstuffworks.com/health-illness/wellness/physical-fitness/weight-loss/how-healthy-weight-loss-works.htm&gt; 10 February 2010.

Another article that supports NOT eating them.

PLEASE, if you can find some that state the opposite, please post the links!

LittleSpy

All that having been said. I'm obese and because of that I have not been eating 100% of my exercise calories. I was eating none. And recently found a need to readjust and began eating about 25% of them.

LittleSpy

"How Healthy Weight Loss Works -- Following USDA Guidelines." 12 December 2006. HowStuffWorks.com. <http://health.howstuffworks.com/health-illness/wellness/physical-fitness/weight-loss/how-healthy-weight-loss-works.htm&gt; 10 February 2010.

Another article that supports NOT eating them.

PLEASE, if you can find some that state the opposite, please post the links!

It seems like maybe you keep forgetting the whole MFP already sets you at a calorie deficit thing.

If you're eating *maintenance* calories, of course you don't want to eat back your exercise calories -- that would be where you're creating your calorie deficit. The USDA is suggesting you create some calorie deficit by making smarter food choices and that you create the rest of yoru calorie deficit through exercis. This is the same as MFP, just explained in a different way. Both ways create a deficit. With MFP -- you're already set at a deficit whether you exercise or not. With the USDA's suggestions, you're only set at a very small deficit through diet, so you make it a little larger with exercise.
It's the same concept.

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???

No, the point is to increase your cardiovascular strength and metabolism. You can certainly lose all the weight you want to lose through diet alone. But you may not look very good or feel very good when you get there. If you're not already eating at a calorie deficit, then yes, absolutely, exercise can be used to create a deficit. Or, if you're obese of severely overweight, exercise can most likely safely be used to create a larger deficit.

I'm ultimately doing this for health reasons -- not to fit into a size 4.

Quite frankly, the point of this site is to lose weight; some people do it for health, others to fit into a size 4. Either way, you have to maintain a healthy weight in order to do both. So, regardless of each person's individual reasoning, a deficit is required. Having said that, this is what I mean by the process being pointless-if the formula is current caloric intake - reduced caloric intake - caloric burn, why eat the calories? For me, that doesn't make sense. Maybe I am missing something, but logically, I don't see how that would not hinder the progress. Any thoughts?

1st read my edits

2nd - the point is that it's very possible that if a person eats 1200 calories a day and then exercises to burn 800 calories and nets only 400 calories a day, their body is going to start conserving as much fat as possible and start consuming muscle mass and shutting down body functions to conserve energy.
It's not a "mathematical impossibility" to be at a 1000, 2000, or 3000 calorie deficit and not lose weight. It's not just calories in vs. calories out. Our bodies are way more complex than that.
Read this:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing

I think you missed this post I posted earlier

This story mentions nothing about her excercise calories; in fact, quite the contrary, it says she is sedentary. It seems to me her struggles come from not eating enough calories, whether she is working out or not. I completely agree that you HAVE to eat 1200 calories a day, minimum, PERIOD. However, she was not. So her metabolism shut down. I agree with all of that.

He does not address, however, whether a deficit caused by excercise is considered something that slows the metabolism. On the contrary, there is proven evidence that excercise speeds yor metabolism regardless of what you eat. OBVIOUSLY, you have to watch what you eat if you have a significant amount of weight to lose. But there are tons of thin, healthy people that eat Doritos and cheeseburgers and fries, but because their metabolism is high from excercise. Excercise also burns some of those excess calories..but if they eat them back, they would not be thin and they would not be healthy.

karmasBFF

"How Healthy Weight Loss Works -- Following USDA Guidelines." 12 December 2006. HowStuffWorks.com. <http://health.howstuffworks.com/health-illness/wellness/physical-fitness/weight-loss/how-healthy-weight-loss-works.htm&gt; 10 February 2010.

Another article that supports NOT eating them.

PLEASE, if you can find some that state the opposite, please post the links!

It seems like maybe you keep forgetting the whole MFP already sets you at a calorie deficit thing.

If you're eating *maintenance* calories, of course you don't want to eat back your exercise calories -- that would be where you're creating your calorie deficit. The USDA is suggesting you create some calorie deficit by making smarter food choices and that you create the rest of yoru calorie deficit through exercis. This is the same as MFP, just explained in a different way. Both ways create a deficit. With MFP -- you're already set at a deficit whether you exercise or not. With the USDA's suggestions, you're only set at a very small deficit through diet, so you make it a little larger with exercise.
It's the same concept.

Ok wait, something is clicking now! Are you suggesting that because MFP already provides the 1,000 calorie deficit per day, there is no need to create it further with excercise? Is this where the argument comes from eating your calories? If so, I can now see why there is sooooo much confusion about this!