eating back exercise calories..the point?
akilahleemarie
Posts: 80 Member
So I have been testing out different numbers that this site gives me in order to lose weight. I understand that bigger people can afford to lose weight faster than smaller people. I'm female, 135 pounds and 5 fooot 8.5...I work as a waitress 4 days a week. I have tracked my steps at work,,and I know just in steps I burn about 500 calories a shift. from october 23, i started at 145 lbs and december 10, got down to 130 pounds. I was eating 1200 calories a day, and interval training 5-7 days a week an hour at a time burning about 600 calories a workout. and im a single mom of 3 young children. so I am a pretty far from a desk job. Anyways...after I hit 130 i went to 133 a week later (still was following my diet faithfully)..it didn't go away...it would not go back down to 133. i started feeling mentally agitated and emotionally unstable and had a mini break break down. So for the last week now i have been eating like a normal person and have not been working out. in a few days i am going to try to lose weight again. before i was happy at losing 2 pounds a week atleast...and I always was able to lose that. I am a little confsed about the "eat your calories back" thing everyone keeps talking about on this website. After doing me research I know that my bmr is about 1430...and it makes sense why 1200 gross (consumed) calories was a bad idea...beucase it literally was not enough to be in coma. But I don't understand the point of busting your butt for an hour and burning 600 calories and then eating 600 extra calories to cover it...or working out for 20 mins and burning 200 calories and eating an extra 200 calories to cover it. no one on this website seems to talk about the point of working out, if you have to eat back what you just burned. to me its like making $500 and 2 minutes later going out and wasting all of it..you worked hard for that $500 and now you have no money left. can someone please explain to me the point of working out????? i only was working out to burn the 600 calories of fat.
0
Replies
-
you are already at a calorie deficit.
exercising will make more of a deficit.0 -
If it takes 1800 calories for you to break even for the day, then for weight loss, you need to eat a little less than 1800, like maybe 1500. If your goal is 1500 per day, and you burn 600 in exercise, that leaves you with 900 net calories for the day. You need to keep the calories you eat at 1500 everyday. That's why. It's easy. Don't over think it ir try to make it complicated.0
-
Imagine identical twins...
Both net exactly the same calories, one exercises and eats back, the other one doesn't exercise.
Which one would be:
Fitter, healthier, better bone density, look hotter, be leaner, eat lots more tasty food, have more energy?0 -
Perhaps if you are 5'8" and 130 pounds, you don't need to lose weight. Eat at maintenance, exercise moderately, and get on with your life.0
-
You exercise to be fit and healthy not to lose weight. 90% of weight loss will be determined by your diet. Whether you're at a healthy goal weight with nice lean body mass or a flabby blob will be determined by your exercise.0
-
At your height and weight, you are already at a healthy BMI. If you are trying to lower your BF%, you can do so with a small deficit and strength training exercise. You should not have a large deficit with your stats. Even if your body fat is high, you should still have a deficit of less than 300 calories from maintenance.0
-
Losing weight and getting fit are two different things..often hooked together and confused. You eat at a deficit to lose weight..and your exercise to get fit and lean. I find the "eating exercise calories back" a godsend. I never heard of it before coming to mfp. For me, it makes losing weight much more manageable because I can enjoy more food on days I work out...and still lose. You also feel better and it helps make the connection that being active means you can eat more normal and not get fat.0
-
If your only concern is losing weight, with no regard for lbm:fat or overall health, there isn't a point.
If you want to be fitter, read the above linked topics.0 -
Your premise assumes that the purpose of exercise is to burn calories. There are WAY more important benefits to exercise than calorie burn.
In your $500 metaphor, it's more like you immediately go out and spend the money on things that make your life better in general.0 -
I just calculated the calories for my homemade totally from scratch apple pie. It's fcking awesome apple pie. One slice is 348 calories. If I wasn't going to eat back my exercise calories it would be way difficult for me to fit a slice or two of that pie into my calories for the day. I would be missing out on some of the finest goddamned apple pie to ever grace a fcking plate. That would be a huge tragedy. Don't live a tragic life, eat pie instead.0
-
I just calculated the calories for my homemade totally from scratch apple pie. It's fcking awesome apple pie. One slice is 348 calories. If I wasn't going to eat back my exercise calories it would be way difficult for me to fit a slice or two of that pie into my calories for the day. I would be missing out on some of the finest goddamned apple pie to ever grace a fcking plate. That would be a huge tragedy. Don't live a tragic life, eat pie instead.
That's another good point- I try to meet my major nutritional needs with my base calories, and allow some treats with exercise cals. That alone makes it worth it. Tragic life averted.0 -
a lot of bad information in this thread.. like most "don't eat less than what MFP tells you" posts tend to go... hilarious0
-
What is this bigger people can "afford" to lose weight faster than smaller people??????? Afford? Really?
I think that regardless of size, losing weight and getting healthy/fit is something that needs to be done smart, not fast.
This kinda annoys me. I've heard a few people say that in regards to both height and weight and it just irks me because it is like you are trying to give an "okay" to do some kind of crash diet. -.-0 -
a lot of bad information in this thread.. like most "don't eat less than what MFP tells you" posts tend to go... hilarious
Actually, the information in this thread being give to the OP is spot on, and really good advice.0 -
a lot of bad information in this thread.. like most "don't eat less than what MFP tells you" posts tend to go... hilarious
Are you going to enlighten us, oh All Knowing Interweb Guy, or are we supposed to figure it out all by our bad information believing selves?0 -
I just calculated the calories for my homemade totally from scratch apple pie. It's fcking awesome apple pie. One slice is 348 calories. If I wasn't going to eat back my exercise calories it would be way difficult for me to fit a slice or two of that pie into my calories for the day. I would be missing out on some of the finest goddamned apple pie to ever grace a fcking plate. That would be a huge tragedy. Don't live a tragic life, eat pie instead.
That's another good point- I try to meet my major nutritional needs with my base calories, and allow some treats with exercise cals. That alone makes it worth it. Tragic life averted.
That's because all you do is win!0 -
a lot of bad information in this thread.. like most "don't eat less than what MFP tells you" posts tend to go... hilarious
Actually, the information in this thread being give to the OP is spot on, and really good advice.
I agree. There is some good info getting thrown out here. I don't agree with the whole I'm going to eat 1200 calories or less...even with exercise...mentality.0 -
Here is some more info if you'd like to read on it:
If you want, check out this link by MFPer Heliotsdan - http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12
It'll give you a detailed walkthrough (with pictures even) on finding your TDEE and calculating what you should be eating.
Also, if you are worried about the calorie intake, I also suggest you read this thread that has numerous people who met their goals and are maintaining. Some for years and they also provide their calorie intake and how often they work out.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/816542-let-s-hear-it-for-maintainenance
And if you are looking for foods to help with upping your calorie intake, I suggest checking this out:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/410771-i-can-t-reach-my-calorie-goal-it-s-too-much-food0 -
LOL0
-
What is this bigger people can "afford" to lose weight faster than smaller people??????? Afford? Really?
I think that regardless of size, losing weight and getting healthy/fit is something that needs to be done smart, not fast.
This kinda annoys me. I've heard a few people say that in regards to both height and weight and it just irks me because it is like you are trying to give an "okay" to do some kind of crash diet. -.-
People with more fat can lose more fat on a weekly basis. It's why 2lbs/wk is an appropriate goal generally for people with 50+lbs to lose, and the less fat you have to lose, the smaller the deficit needs to be. A person with a total of 15lbs to goal can't lose 2lbs of fat a week....if they lose 2lbs it's going to be a high percentage of LBM.
Also, if you look in to DOCTOR SUPERVISED VLCD's, they're only used in extreme cases of obesity, people with a lot of weight to lose. No respectable doctor would put a healthy-weight or moderately overweight person on a VLCD. To be clear, this does not mean that they're safe for anyone who is not under a doctor's strict supervision.
But anyway, that's what it means.0 -
If it takes 1800 calories for you to break even for the day, then for weight loss, you need to eat a little less than 1800, like maybe 1500. If your goal is 1500 per day, and you burn 600 in exercise, that leaves you with 900 net calories for the day. You need to keep the calories you eat at 1500 everyday. That's why. It's easy. Don't over think it ir try to make it complicated.
^^^^^^ Well said.0 -
Look at the graphic on your main page.
Imagine that it tells you that you have a calorie goal of 1400 calories for each day.
Imagine that you burn 300 calories with exercise today.
And imagine that you ate 1600 calories in food today.
1600 calories - 300 calories = 1300 net calories.
1400 calorie goal - 1300 net calories = 100 calorie deficit.
Deficit = weight loss.
Your goal calories is your net goal, not your food intake goal.0 -
What is this bigger people can "afford" to lose weight faster than smaller people??????? Afford? Really?
I think that regardless of size, losing weight and getting healthy/fit is something that needs to be done smart, not fast.
This kinda annoys me. I've heard a few people say that in regards to both height and weight and it just irks me because it is like you are trying to give an "okay" to do some kind of crash diet. -.-
People with more fat can lose more fat on a weekly basis. It's why 2lbs/wk is an appropriate goal generally for people with 50+lbs to lose, and the less fat you have to lose, the smaller the deficit needs to be. A person with a total of 15lbs to goal can't lose 2lbs of fat a week....if they lose 2lbs it's going to be a high percentage of LBM.
Also, if you look in to DOCTOR SUPERVISED VLCD's, they're only used in extreme cases of obesity, people with a lot of weight to lose. No respectable doctor would put a healthy-weight or moderately overweight person on a VLCD. To be clear, this does not mean that they're safe for anyone who is not under a doctor's strict supervision.
But anyway, that's what it means.
See, that's okay..doing 2lbs is fine. I guess it got touchy because more than one person in RL and on MFP have said how there was someone that lost 35-45lbs in 2 months kind of situation (not doctor supervised). And that it was okay because they were "heavier". That means they were losing about 5lbs a week and supposedly doing it just by exercise and eating healthier. And so that's why when I see that phrase, it gets my back up a bit.0 -
a lot of bad information in this thread.. like most "don't eat less than what MFP tells you" posts tend to go... hilarious
Are you going to enlighten us, oh All Knowing Interweb Guy, or are we supposed to figure it out all by our bad information believing selves?
nope, i'll let you continue to preach your gospel.. It's not the worst information i've seen on here. Did anyone also recommend to the OP to eat 10 small meals a day too? lol0 -
a lot of bad information in this thread.. like most "don't eat less than what MFP tells you" posts tend to go... hilarious
Are you going to enlighten us, oh All Knowing Interweb Guy, or are we supposed to figure it out all by our bad information believing selves?
nope, i'll let you continue to preach your gospel.. It's not the worst information i've seen on here. Did anyone also recommend to the OP to eat 10 small meals a day too? lol
I'm curious as to why you are bashing on it? For a lot of people, eating smaller meals has worked..not only with food cravings but also with teaching them about portion control.0 -
12 small meals should be the answer. 6 is ridiculous.0
-
Read his past posts. He's a 28-year old male who believes starving himself is the best way to lose weight. 'Nuff said.I'm curious as to why you are bashing on it? For a lot of people, eating smaller meals has worked..not only with food cravings but also with teaching them about portion control.
To the OP - eating back exercise calories (or at least a portion of them in case your exercise deficit was overcalculated) is a way of maintaining the deficit set by MFP without letting it get too large. A larger calorie deficit is not always beneficial.0 -
What is this bigger people can "afford" to lose weight faster than smaller people??????? Afford? Really?
I think that regardless of size, losing weight and getting healthy/fit is something that needs to be done smart, not fast.
This kinda annoys me. I've heard a few people say that in regards to both height and weight and it just irks me because it is like you are trying to give an "okay" to do some kind of crash diet. -.-
Actually - true. With high body fat 1.) Getting the extra weight off quickly could be saving their life. 2.) They can lose weight faster because they do have extra fuel in the form of body fat to be used. Low body fat people who try to lose weight at an accelerated pace can be losing more lean mass (muscle) if they set their deficit too high.
You might be arguing semantics here, I'm not sure why that point would bother you. It's a fact. High calorie deficits (or VLCDs) are often recommended for obese patients. As long as they are getting their basic nutrients met, VLCDs are fine for obese people. VLCDs for Low Body Fat people is extremely risky, since they can lose important muscle....you know...like their heart muscle....
edit to say Bahh ha ha, morebean. We typed the same response verbatim. :laugh: You are obviously operating on moar coffee/faster.0 -
Read his past posts. He's a 28-year old male who believes starving himself is the best way to lose weight. 'Nuff said.I'm curious as to why you are bashing on it? For a lot of people, eating smaller meals has worked..not only with food cravings but also with teaching them about portion control.
To the OP - eating back exercise calories (or at least a portion of them in case your exercise deficit was overcalculated) is a way of maintaining the deficit set by MFP without letting it get too large. A larger calorie deficit is not always beneficial.
50 year old savant has spoken.. Close this thread.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions