WHY DO PEOPLE EAT BACK THEIR EXERCISE CALS?!
Replies
-
At my "advanced" age and size, my BMR is only about 1250-1300. I lost most of my weight eating 1350-1600 NET (more as I approached my goal), so with exercise calories, that was around 1800-2100 total. Sometimes more.
You are so damned advanced.
GET OFF MY LAWN! :laugh:
LOL0 -
I am not convinced my body is that consistent, in theory the fitter I am the harder I work out the more I can burn at the same weight. Fast twitch burns more than slow per minute when active especially but is harder to work for a long time. Anaerobic exercise uses oxygen and has a measurable calorie burn- anaerobic exercise can't burn oxygen thus no calorie burn. Was always told that exercise without the necessary food combinations would burn slow twitch for fuel whilst building fast twitch. Hence sinewy looking ultra marathon runners. The +6% body ulta losers could be swapping one muscle type for another without losing overall muscle. To conclude there is no overall muscle loss doesn't consider muscle type. Weight lifters bodies may behave differently to 100 year old marathon runners. Fit athletic young cadets from barbell babes.
Swimming in very very cold water burns fat fastest per minute but would need to build endurance to do that !
So body Muscle fibre composition is important when burning fat as fuel, as is duration, temperature, intensity nutrition and hydration. I think it varies more than we know.
I love that a 133 lb cutie with stunning slow twitch muscle definition looks so much more shapely than the130lb before. Go girl go!
Jasmin0 -
I know, it's so stupid! Some people don't know enough about diet and fitness to see that eating these calories back will stall your weight loss, which is sad.0
-
I know, it's so stupid! Some people don't know enough about diet and fitness to see that eating these calories back will stall your weight loss, which is sad.
Why do you think that is?
What metabolic advantage do you have by burning cals well below daily TDEE?
Where do your hormones come in to play and if I told you you can get better results working out more efficiently and eating all the food you like....would you believe me?0 -
Your NET calories need to be high enough so that your body doesn't go into starvation mode and hang onto the weight. I aim to have @ least 800 NET calories/day.0
-
Because I like my muscle thank you.0
-
Your NET calories need to be high enough so that your body doesn't go into starvation mode and hang onto the weight. I aim to have @ least 800 NET calories/day.
What?!?!?!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
The blog says that the men were put through extreme caloric restriction but also had extreme physical exercise the whole time among other things. I don't think that the study can be applied to everyone. It makes sense that they would not lose muscle because they were forced to workout so heavily. The body needed to do the work that was demanded of it, then only began to lose muscle when the body fat got too low and it decided that it didn't really have a choice. If I diet and lay around a lot (which happens because I'm lazy like that) then my body might not respond the same way as the test subjects. There is a lot going on in nutrition and fitness and the body. You might be right about being able to lose weight and maintain muscle mass. But not because it's impossible to lose muscle mass while losing weight. One doesn't mean the other. The blog was generalized so much that it turns out no one ever loses muscle at all until they have very little body fat?
"NOT TRUE, you won't start using muscle until your below 6% body fat." versus "the first 8 weeks showed that fat can be lost without muscle being lost"
I agree with the second one.
I heart generalized statements.0 -
I know, it's so stupid! Some people don't know enough about diet and fitness to see that eating these calories back will stall your weight loss, which is sad.
While I was losing weight, I lost an average of one pound a week for seven months, right on schedule, and I always ate most of my exercise calories. Nothing sad about that. And I've been happily maintaining that loss for over a year now, and able to eat pizza, chocolate, ice cream, etc without ever feel guilt or remorse.
Food guilt. Now THAT is something sad.0 -
I know, it's so stupid! Some people don't know enough about diet and fitness to see that eating these calories back will stall your weight loss, which is sad.
While I was losing weight, I lost an average of one pound a week for seven months, right on schedule, and I always ate most of my exercise calories. Nothing sad about that. And I've been happily maintaining that loss for over a year now, and able to eat pizza, chocolate, ice cream, etc without ever feel guilt or remorse.
Food guilt. Now THAT is something sad.
Congrats on your loss and maintaining that loss. But not everyone wants to lose 1lb a week, especially since it is perfectly healthy to lose 1.5 to 2lbs a week. And while it is great to enjoy junk food guilt free, I would rather save those calories for special occasions instead of giving in to my desires. If I had did that in the first place, I wouldn't have to be on MFP counting calories.0 -
I know, it's so stupid! Some people don't know enough about diet and fitness to see that eating these calories back will stall your weight loss, which is sad.
I want to hug you!!!
While they are some people it works for, it doesn't work for me - never has - never will. Good job to those it works for..
I agree with Mrsmalcolm as well.0 -
I know, it's so stupid! Some people don't know enough about diet and fitness to see that eating these calories back will stall your weight loss, which is sad.
While I was losing weight, I lost an average of one pound a week for seven months, right on schedule, and I always ate most of my exercise calories. Nothing sad about that. And I've been happily maintaining that loss for over a year now, and able to eat pizza, chocolate, ice cream, etc without ever feel guilt or remorse.
Food guilt. Now THAT is something sad.
Congratulations on your weight loss :-). Its truly amazing at how different everyones' bodies are on MFP.
I decided that some things like certain pizzas, ice cream are just not worth consuming and have opted for healthier options (e.g. Veggie pizza or Frozen Yogurt/'80 cal bars) that's just me.0 -
I know, it's so stupid! Some people don't know enough about diet and fitness to see that eating these calories back will stall your weight loss, which is sad.
While I was losing weight, I lost an average of one pound a week for seven months, right on schedule, and I always ate most of my exercise calories. Nothing sad about that. And I've been happily maintaining that loss for over a year now, and able to eat pizza, chocolate, ice cream, etc without ever feel guilt or remorse.
Food guilt. Now THAT is something sad.
Congrats on your loss and maintaining that loss. But not everyone wants to lose 1lb a week, especially since it is perfectly healthy to lose 1.5 to 2lbs a week. And while it is great to enjoy junk food guilt free, I would rather save those calories for special occasions instead of giving in to my desires. If I had did that in the first place, I wouldn't have to be on MFP counting calories.
I disagree on this post.
You can actually lose more fat by giving it a reason not to exist.
Cutting calories too low will cut into LBM and as a result will slow your results.
Give fat a reason not to exist and you wont have it!
You do that by showing the body that it has ample nutrients, by eating the proper amount of cals to fuel your day.
You drink 1/2-1gal a water a day thus flushing any toxins from the system.
You keep hormones in check by not under eating and throwing things out of whack.
You move around.
People who workout about 3x a week and eat at a moderate deficit, -15 to -20% TDEE, are showing better results and longer lasting weight loss.
Cut calories and carbs for an extended time and the chance for bounce back fat gains as well as excess gains is imminent!
Its no longer an "Eat less move more"
Its "Eat right and move with a purpose!"0 -
I did Weight Watchers years ago, and while you do earn activity points for exercise as well as flex points, no one ever made me feel like I had to use them. In fact I recall being encouraged to minimize use of these extra points for maximum results. Unless I'm hungry or its a special occasion, I'm not touching my exercise calories. I don't have a HRM so all I have are estimates and we know that MFP tends to estimate burned calories high. I just feel like its a slippery slope to eat back your calories, if you have the discipline to do it without ODing than go for it, but I just don't trust it. Besides I couldn't imagine eating that much food. Today I burned more than 1000 calories and I ate 1200 calories. It is 1030 at night. I have eaten 3 meals and a snack and I am full and one for the night.
How long have you been doing that? Yikes. 200 net calories. I think you'd burn more than that breathing *L*.
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.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.0 -
I did Weight Watchers years ago, and while you do earn activity points for exercise as well as flex points, no one ever made me feel like I had to use them. In fact I recall being encouraged to minimize use of these extra points for maximum results. Unless I'm hungry or its a special occasion, I'm not touching my exercise calories. I don't have a HRM so all I have are estimates and we know that MFP tends to estimate burned calories high. I just feel like its a slippery slope to eat back your calories, if you have the discipline to do it without ODing than go for it, but I just don't trust it. Besides I couldn't imagine eating that much food. Today I burned more than 1000 calories and I ate 1200 calories. It is 1030 at night. I have eaten 3 meals and a snack and I am full and one for the night.
How long have you been doing that? Yikes. 200 net calories. I think you'd burn more than that breathing *L*.
I normally burn at least 400 cal a day, but that was while I was working. Now that I am not and live a pretty sedentary lifestyle I have no excuse but to turn it up at the gym. So after my normal workout, I hit spin class. I finished my workout at 7, ate two meals before bed and at 10:30 at night when I posted, I was full and tired. Some suggest eating more in preparation for a big workout, but I don['t count a workout unless its done. Take today for example. I planned to go to the gym, but after doing laundry and watching the Olympics I ended up staying in. If I had eaten more in anticipation of a workout that never happened I would be screwing myself. I keep reading how is it possible to survive on this or that. I never heard any talk of net calories or eating back calories until I joined MFP and while it is a method that works for some, people have been dieting successfully long before these methods came in vogue.0 -
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.
Its quit easy actually. I think people fall in,the trap that eating right is equal to eating low carb and low fat. And the do both. It was not a problem for me to consume 2300 calories a day on whole foods.0 -
I eat mine because I like food, and I like losing weight, and working out gives me cardiovascular benefits not to mention the plus's of my strength training so it's not only about calories burned.
I have lost almost 150 lbs eating them and I will continue to so...............OH did I mention I like food.
That's why I eat my exercise calories.0 -
Congrats on your loss and maintaining that loss. But not everyone wants to lose 1lb a week, especially since it is perfectly healthy to lose 1.5 to 2lbs a week. And while it is great to enjoy junk food guilt free, I would rather save those calories for special occasions instead of giving in to my desires. If I had did that in the first place, I wouldn't have to be on MFP counting calories.
And it's fine to aim to lose 1.5 to 2 pounds a week, IF you have enough to lose to support that kind of deficit. I couldn't lose any more than 1 pound a week no matter how little I ate, unless I got a stomach flu. When I foolishly tried very low calorie years ago (under 1000 a day, and had no clue about exercise calories), I never lost more than a half pound ever OTHER week. I felt like crap, couldn't lose, and even went to the doctor to see if I had a thyroid condition because losing weight shouldn't have been THAT hard.
I thought, "Well, screw it. I'm older (mid 30s then) and my metabolism sucks. Everyone was right. My bad habits in my 20s caught up to me and I'm doomed to be chunky. Might as well forget trying to lose." (Which in retrospect, was a blessing, because otherwise I'd have thought I had to keep cutting my calories, and would've probably ended up with an eating disorder and all kinds of health problems from being malnourished.)
Yet when I had the proper deficit, the weight came off almost effortlessly. Maybe I stepped in some wormhole and magically have a faster metabolism at 40 than I did in my 30s?
I still pay very close attention to what I eat, unless I'm on a "clear my head" hiatus from logging like I am this week (because I know logically I have pretty decent habits now, and I can't really do that much damage in just a week). I eat mostly very nutritious foods and exercise regularly. I eat pizza, but I don't think it's junk. Maybe that particular pizza I enjoy is over-processed, but it's still carbs, protein and fat... usable sources of energy for my body. And it's not something I eat every night.
But since I didn't starve my body to lose the weight, since I never trained it to get by on the bare minimum, and didn't let my exercise habits fade away after I lost weight, it's a calorie burning frickin' furnace now!
I know 99% of the people who think they're doing the right thing by creating a huge calorie deficit are not going to change their minds based on what I say. But that 1% might. And if someone in that 1% starts thinking, "Hey... that sounds like me. I ask myself what's wrong with me, too. I'm trying to lose 2 pounds a week and it's just not happening, too..." then my work is done. Because if I can't go back in time and save myself the grief of feeling like a failure, having no energy and losing muscle mass, maybe I can save someone else.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.0 -
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.
Its quit easy actually. I think people fall in,the trap that eating right is equal to eating low carb and low fat. And the do both. It was not a problem for me to consume 2300 calories a day on whole foods.
I do low carb because I have PCOS, but I am curious how you eat that many calories on whole foods. Maybe there is something I am missing0 -
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.0 -
Love this! Great way to explain it!You can actually lose more fat by giving it a reason not to exist.
I tried the basic 1200 calorie plan that MFP puts a lot of people on. Worked for awhile, but I don't like being tired and hungry, and having to worry about every little thing I eat. Increasing my calories, knowing my BMR and my TDEE and keeping my calories in between those two has worked great for me! I never net below my BMR, and I know I can go all the way up to my TDEE in calories and still not fret over it. I have energy for my workouts and my day, I enjoy my healthy foods and lifestyle, and the fat is steadily coming off.
It's been linked here a couple of times, but here it is again - read this post - Dan's got good stuff posted here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-120 -
I did Weight Watchers years ago, and while you do earn activity points for exercise as well as flex points, no one ever made me feel like I had to use them. In fact I recall being encouraged to minimize use of these extra points for maximum results. Unless I'm hungry or its a special occasion, I'm not touching my exercise calories. I don't have a HRM so all I have are estimates and we know that MFP tends to estimate burned calories high. I just feel like its a slippery slope to eat back your calories, if you have the discipline to do it without ODing than go for it, but I just don't trust it. Besides I couldn't imagine eating that much food. Today I burned more than 1000 calories and I ate 1200 calories. It is 1030 at night. I have eaten 3 meals and a snack and I am full and one for the night.
How long have you been doing that? Yikes. 200 net calories. I think you'd burn more than that breathing *L*.
I normally burn at least 400 cal a day, but that was while I was working. Now that I am not and live a pretty sedentary lifestyle I have no excuse but to turn it up at the gym. So after my normal workout, I hit spin class. I finished my workout at 7, ate two meals before bed and at 10:30 at night when I posted, I was full and tired. Some suggest eating more in preparation for a big workout, but I don['t count a workout unless its done. Take today for example. I planned to go to the gym, but after doing laundry and watching the Olympics I ended up staying in. If I had eaten more in anticipation of a workout that never happened I would be screwing myself. I keep reading how is it possible to survive on this or that. I never heard any talk of net calories or eating back calories until I joined MFP and while it is a method that works for some, people have been dieting successfully long before these methods came in vogue.
True. But you'll notice the norm has been for people to yoyo diet and put the weight bak on plus some. There is a reason there is billions of dollars it selling people diets and the is an obesity epidemic. Dieting as we think of it is a fairly new concept.0 -
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.
Its quit easy actually. I think people fall in,the trap that eating right is equal to eating low carb and low fat. And the do both. It was not a problem for me to consume 2300 calories a day on whole foods.
I do low carb because I have PCOS, but I am curious how you eat that many calories on whole foods. Maybe there is something I am missing
Whole eggs, nuts, nut, butters avacado, beef, salmon, chicken, cream, olive oil, sweet potatoes, plantains, fruit, cheeses, liver, etc...0 -
bump0
-
I didn't get it either until I would loose 500 calories and HAD to eat something. LOL You just need to fuel yourself is all. It won't hurt you and you will loose weight. I was also hesitant, but now I'm all for it. 0
-
You eat them back because MFP already creates the deficit you need through food intake alone. If you don't you are doubling that and will end up eating below what your body needs to sustain itself, which results in unhealthy weight loss and the potential to cause some major damage to your body.0
-
I don't eat back mine. I burn between 500-800 a day and eat 1200 calories. My nutritionist told me not to eat more than 1200 a day, so I try not to
u do know this means you are only eating like 400-700 calories a day right? how u have the energy to type is beyond me.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