eating back exercise calories..the point?
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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?
great response, and a reminder why I need to get my butt moving.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.
No, the calorie goal MFP gives you ALREADY INCLUDES a deficit. Usually a hefty one, depending on how you set it up. If you chose to lose 1lb/week, you have a 500 calorie daily deficit built in, so in your example, the deficit for that person would be 600. If you chose 2lbs/wk, that's 1000 cals per day deficit, so in your example, 1100 calorie deficit. You can see how easily the deficit can get huge if you don't eat exercise calories back.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.
Whoa. 700 calories? Well, in case you wonder about eating below a 1000 calories, check this thread out...just throwing it out there for you...
For the whole eating under a 1000 calories, look...you are going to do what you want but check out the link below at some of the stories of people who thought it was okay (especially because they weren't "feeling" hungry a lot of times) but ended up regretting it. These links are just information to give you options. I'm not preaching or trying to tell you or anyone what is the "right way"...just throwing some info your way is all.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/521480-1000-calories-or-less-a-day0 -
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....
shhhhhhhh.. but it doesn't say that in Cosmo, Allure, O, Men's Fitness, GQ... SHHHHH with math and science.0 -
Hey Joy, ty for the link.. I will def take a look into it.. I appreciate you putting it up, there are a lot of threads here that sometimes i miss..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.
No, the calorie goal MFP gives you ALREADY INCLUDES a deficit. Usually a hefty one, depending on how you set it up. If you chose to lose 1lb/week, you have a 500 calorie daily deficit built in, so in your example, the deficit for that person would be 600. If you chose 2lbs/wk, that's 1000 cals per day deficit, so in your example, 1100 calorie deficit. You can see how easily the deficit can get huge if you don't eat exercise calories back.
Ahhhh! Too much math on a Saturday morning!! LOL. But yes, I see where I messed that up. Bottom line, eating back what you burned is healthy. MFP has you on enough of a deficit to lose weight with no exercise at all. Add in exercise changes the equation. You have to eat the calories to put the equation back to where it originated.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.
^ This. But I have my own top secret man-ipe for apple pie. Life without pie just sux.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.
^THIS0 -
At 5.8 and 135 pounds, you are already at the lower end of a healthy BMI. Maybe you need to think about your body image? Or maybe you don;t need to lose weight, but need to improve your body shape/composition through eating at BMI and doing strength training.
Just my two cents.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.
No, the calorie goal MFP gives you ALREADY INCLUDES a deficit. Usually a hefty one, depending on how you set it up. If you chose to lose 1lb/week, you have a 500 calorie daily deficit built in, so in your example, the deficit for that person would be 600. If you chose 2lbs/wk, that's 1000 cals per day deficit, so in your example, 1100 calorie deficit. You can see how easily the deficit can get huge if you don't eat exercise calories back.
Ahhhh! Too much math on a Saturday morning!! LOL. But yes, I see where I messed that up. Bottom line, eating back what you burned is healthy. MFP has you on enough of a deficit to lose weight with no exercise at all. Add in exercise changes the equation. You have to eat the calories to put the equation back to where it originated.
Agreed. :happy:0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 404 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 987 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions