WHY DO PEOPLE EAT BACK THEIR EXERCISE CALS?!

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!

Jasmin

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?

Because I like my muscle thank you.

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.

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).
Here's typical weight loss, per my exercise physiology textbook.

Check this
http://fitnessblackbook.com/main/starvation-mode-why-you-probably-never-need-to-worry-about-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.

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).

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.
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.

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 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.

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*.

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.

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.

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.