Can't get my head around eating what I earn in exercise!
Options
Replies
-
Wow! I can't believe what I'm reading. With all these experts, it's a wonder there is even a website dedicated to helping people lose weight in a healthy way.
Everyone already knows everything, so that means, you're all at your goal?0 -
Simple.
Most people on here (like myself) are doing the lose 1lb a week option (others go for more which isn't good for you), and thus to do that you have to eat you MINIMUM BASIC METABOLIC RATE. aka minimum BMR.
So basically that's usually around 1200 for most people it seems.
Let's say you ate 1200 calories, and you lost 200 calories exercising - well that'd be down to 1000 calories which is below your bodies BMR.
BMR is the amount of calories your body needs to sustain organs, tissue, cells, everything. So if you eat less than that the likelyhood is that you will lose muscle in the process.
When it comes to discussing the 'starvation mode', i'm not talking about that as that's a completely different world (though easily linked).
If you eat 1200 and eat back those 200 to meet at 1400 which makes your net 1200 your body will still function fine but the benefit of exercise is there as your bodies ability to burn the calories the next day are increased (studies show that calories burned one day are still burning and burning more the next day). This may be partially why yo-yo eating (day to day) is also proven to be an effective method of weight loss.
If like most people you exercise, then have a break/rest day or exercise another part of your body, your body is only becoming more effective with exercise and your body isn't just losing the calories it is using them more effectively in trying to keep your heart pumping moving and flowing, absorbing shock as well as muscle repair.
Maintenance level eating is there to maintain your weight and thus you can get away with eating much more than 1200 without losing weight but staying the same right?bThat's why you need to eat the calories that you've exercised back, otherwise your body may use the muscles or tissues to look for what it's missing out on if it's done during a long period of time.
So eating less than maintanence is already what you're doing you don't want to eat below the minimum!
I understand this principle my head does that is lol, What I mean is if I had not done it the opposite way in the past and it working then it is hard for me to see it working this way, but I will give it a go! xx
You're trying to compare 2 different approaches, both of which can work when done properly. The problem is that they work differently. Anytime you try to compare different programs, especially if you try to merge them, you're going to have problems.
There are lots of successful programs out there... pick 1 and go with it, but don't second guess them.
Fantastic that is what I wanted to hear, so you agree there is an exact science behind both and both can work, goodo I tried and was successful the first time round in that way now my goal posts have changed and I want different results, ie I am not bothered about the ripped body just the healthy one now, so this way will work this time...0 -
jacksonpt,
You're correct in pretty much everything you've said. You're just abrasive and argumentative. That seems to be why people are challenging your wisdom. I'm fairly certain you're aware of this.
I can also see that while it doesn't gain you any allies, and may diminish the motivation of others, but it does tend to get your points across.0 -
OK, /sarcasm.
Eating back your exercise cals is because you are already at a deficit. This site starts you at a deficit. If you exercise, you'll be more at a deficit, and then you start getting into unhealthy territory, potentially.
I ate back my exercise calories and lost most of my weight. But, I got stuck for a long time with the last 5 to 10 lbs. What I did to break it was stop eating back exercise calories and that did the trick.
The best thing to do, IMHO, rather than posulate and theorize, is to try something and then make small adjustments until you find something that has you losing weight at a healthy rate, aka, 1 lb per week.0 -
OK, /sarcasm.
Eating back your exercise cals is because you are already at a deficit. This site starts you at a deficit. If you exercise, you'll be more at a deficit, and then you start getting into unhealthy territory, potentially.
I ate back my exercise calories and lost most of my weight. But, I got stuck for a long time with the last 5 to 10 lbs. What I did to break it was stop eating back exercise calories and that did the trick.
The best thing to do, IMHO, rather than posulate and theorize, is to try something and then make small adjustments until you find something that has you losing weight at a healthy rate, aka, 1 lb per week.
Could do with a 'like' button
0 -
jacksonpt,
You're correct in pretty much everything you've said. You're just abrasive and argumentative. That seems to be why people are challenging your wisdom. I'm fairly certain you're aware of this.
I can also see that while it doesn't gain you any allies, and may diminish the motivation of others, but it does tend to get your points across.
Yes, I'm aware I get that way at times. Sometimes I should probably just leave the forums because "toning things down" isn't always enough.
.0 -
That is exactly what I am getting at. Everyone's situation is different and we must figure out what best works for us. No, we don't have all the answers for everyone else, we just have to try to figure them out for ourselves. Having a severe calorie deficit over a long time is obviously not healthy for anyone, But to say that it is unhealthy for anyone not to eat back all of their exercise calories every day, is also not reasonable. Moderation and common sense need to come into play.0
-
That is exactly what I am getting at. Everyone's situation is different and we must figure out what best works for us. No, we don't have all the answers for everyone else, we just have to try to figure them out for ourselves. Having a severe calorie deficit over a long time is obviously not healthy for anyone, But to say that it is unhealthy for anyone not to eat back all of their exercise calories every day, is also not reasonable. Moderation and common sense need to come into play.
I've always said it depends... It depends on the person, their goals, their limitations, their preferences. But the science doesn't change just the application.0 -
jacksonpt,
You're correct in pretty much everything you've said. You're just abrasive and argumentative. That seems to be why people are challenging your wisdom. I'm fairly certain you're aware of this.
I can also see that while it doesn't gain you any allies, and may diminish the motivation of others, but it does tend to get your points across.
The Simon Cowell of the MFP world, love him or hate him, difference is at least this guy seems to have some qualification/experience to back up being 'abrasive'
0 -
What does TDEE and NEAT stand for? I know what BMR is. MFP said my basal metabolic rate was 1667 and gave me a 1200 cal daily goal. I assume that is because they won't recommend less than 1200.0
-
jacksonpt,
You're correct in pretty much everything you've said. You're just abrasive and argumentative. That seems to be why people are challenging your wisdom. I'm fairly certain you're aware of this.
I can also see that while it doesn't gain you any allies, and may diminish the motivation of others, but it does tend to get your points across.
The Simon Cowell of the MFP world, love him or hate him, difference is at least this guy seems to have some qualification/experience to back up being 'abrasive'
As this is my first encounter with him, and I'm still relatively new to MFP, I'm reserving judgement on liking him or not. The abrasive method does seem to get the point across more readily than coddling does.0 -
by joejvcca71 in this thread:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/510406-tdee-is-everything
1. BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate): This is the amount of calories you need to consume to maintain your body if you were comatose (base level).
2. NEAT (Non-Exercise Associated Thermogenesis): The calorie of daily activity that is NOT exercise (eg: washing, walking, talking, shopping, working). ie: INCIDENTAL EXERCISE! It is something that everyone has a good amount of control over & it is the MOST important factor in your energy expenditure. It is what helps keep 'constitutionally lean' people LEAN (they fidget)!
3. EAT (Exercise Associated Thermogenesis): The calorie requirements associated with planned exercise. Unless someone is doing a whole heap of exercise (eg: two or more hrs training a day) it usually doesn't add a stack of calories to your requirements (30 minutes of 'elliptical training isn't going to do it')
4. TEF (Thermic effect of feeding): The calorie expenditure associated with eating. REGARDLESS of what myths you have been told - this is NOT dependent on MEAL FREQUENCY. It is a % of TOTAL CALORIES CONSUMED (and 15% of 3 x 600 cal meals is the same as 15% of 6 x 300 cal meals). It varies according to MACRONUTRIENT content and FIBER content. For most mixed diets, it is something around 15%. Protein is higher (up to 25%), carbs are variable (between 5-25%), and fats are low (usually less than 5%). So -> More protein and more carbs and more fiber = HIGHER TEF. More FAT = LOWER TEF.
5. TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expedenture): Total calories burned. BMR + NEAT + EAT + TEF = TDEE0 -
What does TDEE and NEAT stand for? I know what BMR is. MFP said my basal metabolic rate was 1667 and gave me a 1200 cal daily goal. I assume that is because they won't recommend less than 1200.
Here's what everyone talks about when they mention TDEE: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/510406-tdee-is-everything
Follow joejccva71's blog posts: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/joejccva71. It will educate you.
Edit: HAHAHAHA! You beat me to it Jack!0 -
bump for later reading...0
-
Former BFL'er here. The difference is that now we are both back to counting calories, so obviously it wasn't a sustainable program. I gained all my weight back and lost the muscle mass when I had to go back to living life and couldn't just spend my days at the gym anymore.
I didn't have a nutritionist, but did hire trainers. That is darn expensive when you consider that paying for a monthly gym membership and all the supplements that are required for the BFL program. It really adds up.
So here I am, a decade later trying to figure out how to get and stay fit on the cheap. The workouts that BFL recommended are still part of my life, as is the EAS protein mix. Other than that, I'm trying to stay at a minimum cash outlay.
Add me if you like. It's a journey and we could all use extra support.0 -
Eat less!
Move more!
Simple!!
Eating more is what made us all fat in the first place!0 -
Eat less!
Move more!
Simple!!
Mrs. Obama?0 -
Eat less!
Move more!
Simple!!
Mrs. Obama?
LOL did she say this?0 -
Simple.
Most people on here (like myself) are doing the lose 1lb a week option (others go for more which isn't good for you), and thus to do that you have to eat you MINIMUM BASIC METABOLIC RATE. aka minimum BMR.
So basically that's usually around 1200 for most people it seems.
Let's say you ate 1200 calories, and you lost 200 calories exercising - well that'd be down to 1000 calories which is below your bodies BMR.
BMR is the amount of calories your body needs to sustain organs, tissue, cells, everything. So if you eat less than that the likelyhood is that you will lose muscle in the process.
When it comes to discussing the 'starvation mode', i'm not talking about that as that's a completely different world (though easily linked).
If you eat 1200 and eat back those 200 to meet at 1400 which makes your net 1200 your body will still function fine but the benefit of exercise is there as your bodies ability to burn the calories the next day are increased (studies show that calories burned one day are still burning and burning more the next day). This may be partially why yo-yo eating (day to day) is also proven to be an effective method of weight loss.
If like most people you exercise, then have a break/rest day or exercise another part of your body, your body is only becoming more effective with exercise and your body isn't just losing the calories it is using them more effectively in trying to keep your heart pumping moving and flowing, absorbing shock as well as muscle repair.
Maintenance level eating is there to maintain your weight and thus you can get away with eating much more than 1200 without losing weight but staying the same right?bThat's why you need to eat the calories that you've exercised back, otherwise your body may use the muscles or tissues to look for what it's missing out on if it's done during a long period of time.
So eating less than maintanence is already what you're doing you don't want to eat below the minimum!
I understand this principle my head does that is lol, What I mean is if I had not done it the opposite way in the past and it working then it is hard for me to see it working this way, but I will give it a go! xx
If you reach a stagnant point then it's actually best to up your calories for a bit and perhaps eat the 1200 for a day, and a bit over the next day for a bit. Just like with exercise your body gets bored of repetition and just needs a slight change sometimes to put it back on track. The yo-yo effect gets your body metabolising as it's having to guess what will come in and out.
To those that are PRO-under 1200/not eating exercise calories:
You simply eat little, yes the calories will come down and the weight will come off FAST but not necessarily FAT, it's more than likely other tissue cells and will just stress your body, cause cravings and when you DO eat at maintenance level again, it will 'feed' to get back what it lost and thus begin this cycle again.0 -
if you burn 2000 a day but eat 1500, that means you're on a deficit of 500 calories (roughly in 1lb a week)
therefore, if you go to a gym and burn, say, 700 calories you've burnt 2700 that day. that means you could eat 2200 and would still be eating at a 500 calorie deficit.
i don't eat all of the calories i burn, because i rarely feel the need to. but, the theory seems pretty good to me.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 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
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions