Wrapping my head around weight loss

Options
mamoth100
mamoth100 Posts: 7
in Health and Weight Loss
I will first start this by saying the way my head works is very analytical (my job makes it that way). So, the idea of eating more to lose weight is a very hard thing for my head to buy into. The way my head is telling me to do it is to eat sensibly and eat until you are full, exercise, don't eat junk, etc. and you'll lose weight. But I'm seeing that isn't so. Then if you exercise, you have to eat even more. Just totally opposite of what my brain is telling me to do.

At any rate, about 4 weeks ago, I started P90X. I have lost around 15 pounds. However, the last 2 weeks I have lost very little if any. I calculated it out, and I think I'm about 1,000 calories short. So I'm going to try to eat more. However, my question is about caloric intake. I will use an example:

When I do Plyo X, my chest HRM tells me I burned 1,700 calories after disc completion. I must have, according to myfitnesspal, around 1,700 calories if I don't exercise. So we are talking about 3,400 calories daily (give or take depending on the P90X disc I am doing that day) to eat when I exercise.

Now, if I'm sedentary, and eat good food (veggies, fruits, proteins, etc) I only need 1,700 calories.

Ok, after having said all that, I see that it should be possible to lose weight if I don't do any exercise if I stay on a 1,700 calorie diet. Now, if I do my P90X, I have to eat 3,400 calories to lose weight.

I have two questions:

1. Why don't I just sit on my butt, eat 1,700 calories and lose weight? Why put myself through P90X if I keep to the proper caloric intake? I thought exercising is supposed to make you lose weight faster, but if I'm eating the extra calories I burned off with exercise, how does exercising help accelerate weight loss compared to eating right (the 1,700 calories) and not exercising? This is extremely baffling to me

2. Why is it that I have to put the same number of calories back into my body that I've burned off when exercising? I am really struggling with this. I've seen the posts that my body needs the energy and such. But it just doesn't make sense in my head. Why replace calories that I've worked so hard to burn off in the first place to lose weight?

Thank you for reading.

Tim

Replies

  • Lylie1985
    Lylie1985 Posts: 35 Member
    Options
    In your case I would see the workout as being beneficial for increasing muscle and a toned body..

    Calorie deficit for weightloss..
  • herblackwings39
    herblackwings39 Posts: 3,930 Member
    Options
    You want a deficit of say 500 to 1000 calories a day. That should give you a lose of 1 to 2 lbs a week which is healthy. Exercise helps with body shape, tone, and overall fitness, but by doing it you're turning your reasonable 500 -1000 calorie deficit into up to 2700 calories. You could always try figuring your BMR and TDEE. TDEE would have your exercise burn figured in for you and then you just cut a % of calories and don't need to eat back the burned calories.
  • jennifershoo
    jennifershoo Posts: 3,198 Member
    Options
    Because you don't exercise to lose weight. You eat at a deficit to lose weight and you exercise to keep your muscles whilst losing fat.
  • ddky
    ddky Posts: 381 Member
    Options
    I thought the same way. Why do all that exercise just to eat more. So, I am eating 1500-1600 calories. My only exercise is a 30 minute walk a day (sometimes 2 fifteen minutes instead), and 10-15 minutes of strength training just to tone a little. I have lost 26 pounds since Jan 1, which I am satisfied with and have toned up some. I guess it all depends on your goals, I just want to be healthy and look good in my clothes. Good luck to you.
  • mamoth100
    mamoth100 Posts: 7
    Options
    So, reading your posts, a 1,000 calorie deficient is what I want. But when I use myfitnesspal, it puts the 1,700 calories I burned off exercising right back into the calories it tells me to eat that much. So basically myfitnesspal is wrong?

    And I take from the posts, that I am correct in that I could sit on my butt and just eat the 1,700 calories and lose weight. Exercise doesn't actually increase weight loss. It only gets me "fit".

    Just trying to understand.
  • cmeiron
    cmeiron Posts: 1,599 Member
    Options
    1. Why don't I just sit on my butt, eat 1,700 calories and lose weight? Why put myself through P90X if I keep to the proper caloric intake? I thought exercising is supposed to make you lose weight faster, but if I'm eating the extra calories I burned off with exercise, how does exercising help accelerate weight loss compared to eating right and not exercising? This is extremely baffling to me

    Exercise is primarily to improve your overall health and fitness level (cardio, flexibility, strength). It doesn't necessarily accelerate weight loss (loss is a simple matter of calories in < calories out), but what it does let you do is consume a more sustainable level of calories (dieting sucks and is mentally difficult), also providing more energy and nutrients. Also, it helps you retain lean body mass while eating at a deficit, especially if you're doing resistance work (P90X includes resistance work obviously), minimizing muscle loss. Muscles burn more calories, and make you look a lot better once the fat is shredded off. If you have any thought of trying to increase your muscle mass down the road, it's easier to retain LBM than build new stuff (it'll make your life/training easier in the long run).
    2. Why is it that I have to put the same number of calories back into my body that I've burned off when exercising? I am really struggling with this. I've seen the posts that my body needs the energy and such. But it just doesn't make sense in my head. Why replace calories that I've worked so hard to burn off in the first place to lose weight?

    Your MFP goals already include the caloric deficit you need to lose weight (i.e., that -1000 cal deficit you mentioned). Theoretically, you COULD sit on your duff all day and not exercise, eat to your goal, and lose weight.

    With added exercise, you could chose to eat maybe 50 or 75% of the calories back if you wanted rather than all, then evaluate how you're feeling and how your rate of loss is going. If you didn't eat at least some back, you would likely be faced with fatigue, hunger, and grumpiness; your training/workouts would probably suffer too. (BUT, the reasons for working out, above, should make it clear why you'd choose NOT to sit on your duff all day).
  • rajendra82
    rajendra82 Posts: 20
    Options
    Also be a little careful in trusting the calories reported by the HRM during the P90X strength exercises. All the HRM knows is your heart rate, and it estimates calories burned based on that. The HRM calorie conversion formulas are typically based on measurements during aerobic exercises using oxygen in large groups of muscles in your body, but during an isolating strength exercise, the blood oxygen is only being used in the specific muscle being worked, so the formula converting heart rate to calories ends up being an overestimate.
  • herblackwings39
    herblackwings39 Posts: 3,930 Member
    Options
    So, reading your posts, a 1,000 calorie deficient is what I want. But when I use myfitnesspal, it puts the 1,700 calories I burned off exercising right back into the calories it tells me to eat that much. So basically myfitnesspal is wrong?

    And I take from the posts, that I am correct in that I could sit on my butt and just eat the 1,700 calories and lose weight. Exercise doesn't actually increase weight loss. It only gets me "fit".

    Just trying to understand.

    No, if you were trying to maintain you'd need around 2700 calories. MFP took that 1000 off already to give you 1700.
  • shadow2soul
    shadow2soul Posts: 7,692 Member
    Options
    Exercise is good for your health. It can make you stronger, look leaner, increase your endurance, ect.

    To lose weight, you need a calorie deficit. I usually aim for a 500 calorie deficit a day.

    So my days look like this:

    Lazy Day:
    -fitbit estimated burn of : 1990
    -so I eat: 1390 - 1890 calories (goal of 1560 + exercise as assigned by MFP)

    Exercise Days
    - fitbit estimated burn of: 2500 (it has been higher, but this seems about average)
    - so I eat: 1800 - 2350 calories (I've had days were I have consumed as much as 2500 calories and still been in a deficit)(goal of 1560 + exercise as assigned by MFP)

    Lightly Active Days (no exercise, shopping/errands usually)
    -fitbit estimated burn of: 2200 (it has been both higher and lower...this is just an average)
    -so I eat: 1600 - 2000 calories(goal of 1560 + exercise as assigned by MFP)

    Your body burns calories just by functioning without any activity on your part. You could lay in bed all day and you would still burn calories. MFP is designed to give you a deficit based on what your body would burn without exercise. When you add in exercise, you create a larger deficit and can venture into unhealthy territory by doing so. You need to give your body fuel for the workouts as well as fuel to just do its normal functions. If you only eat what you burn through exercise, you will essentially only be fueling your workouts.
  • mamoth100
    mamoth100 Posts: 7
    Options
    So, reading your posts, a 1,000 calorie deficient is what I want. But when I use myfitnesspal, it puts the 1,700 calories I burned off exercising right back into the calories it tells me to eat that much. So basically myfitnesspal is wrong?

    And I take from the posts, that I am correct in that I could sit on my butt and just eat the 1,700 calories and lose weight. Exercise doesn't actually increase weight loss. It only gets me "fit".

    Just trying to understand.

    No, if you were trying to maintain you'd need around 2700 calories. MFP took that 1000 off already to give you 1700.

    In MFP, I put in I wanted to lose 2 lbs per week. It gave me a total of 1,700 calories. Then if I add 1,700 calories for exercise, it puts it up to 3,400 (which is what MFP is saying too). Then a 1,000 deficient to bring it down to 2,700 calories?

    I guess, how many calories should I be intaking at this point? Seems MFP is conflicting with posts.

    EDIT: I think I get it now after re-reading your post. MFP already took off my deficit on my initial number (number before exercise). So, my intake should be 3,000 calories as the HRM is probably over calculating my calories burned.
  • shadow2soul
    shadow2soul Posts: 7,692 Member
    Options
    So, reading your posts, a 1,000 calorie deficient is what I want. But when I use myfitnesspal, it puts the 1,700 calories I burned off exercising right back into the calories it tells me to eat that much. So basically myfitnesspal is wrong?

    And I take from the posts, that I am correct in that I could sit on my butt and just eat the 1,700 calories and lose weight. Exercise doesn't actually increase weight loss. It only gets me "fit".

    Just trying to understand.

    No, if you were trying to maintain you'd need around 2700 calories. MFP took that 1000 off already to give you 1700.

    In MFP, I put in I wanted to lose 2 lbs per week. It gave me a total of 1,700 calories. Then if I add 1,700 calories for exercise, it puts it up to 3,400 (which is what MFP is saying too). Then a 1,000 deficient to bring it down to 2,700 calories?

    I guess, how many calories should I be intaking at this point? Seems MFP is conflicting with posts.

    I want you to do something.

    Go to "My Home"
    Click "Goals"

    Now look at the right side
    See where it says "Calories burned from daily activity"

    That number doesn't include exercise. Your deficit MFP gave you is based off that number. If you exercise, that number increases and thus MFP gives you more calories to eat.

    So:
    2700 (without exercise TDEE)
    1700 (Goal, 1000 calorie deficit)
    500 (calories burned through exercise)
    3200 (TDEE for day with exercise)
    2200 (Goal, 1000 calorie deficit)
  • mamoth100
    mamoth100 Posts: 7
    Options
    So, reading your posts, a 1,000 calorie deficient is what I want. But when I use myfitnesspal, it puts the 1,700 calories I burned off exercising right back into the calories it tells me to eat that much. So basically myfitnesspal is wrong?

    And I take from the posts, that I am correct in that I could sit on my butt and just eat the 1,700 calories and lose weight. Exercise doesn't actually increase weight loss. It only gets me "fit".

    Just trying to understand.

    No, if you were trying to maintain you'd need around 2700 calories. MFP took that 1000 off already to give you 1700.

    In MFP, I put in I wanted to lose 2 lbs per week. It gave me a total of 1,700 calories. Then if I add 1,700 calories for exercise, it puts it up to 3,400 (which is what MFP is saying too). Then a 1,000 deficient to bring it down to 2,700 calories?

    I guess, how many calories should I be intaking at this point? Seems MFP is conflicting with posts.

    I want you to do something.

    Go to "My Home"
    Click "Goals"

    Now look at the right side
    See where it says "Calories burned from daily activity"

    That number doesn't include exercise. Your deficit MFP gave you is based off that number. If you exercise, that number increases and thus MFP gives you more calories to eat.

    So:
    2700 (without exercise TDEE)
    1700 (Goal, 1000 calorie deficit)
    500 (calories burned through exercise)
    3200 (TDEE for day with exercise)
    2200 (Goal, 1000 calorie deficit)

    This makes sense. Thank you. It was a matter of me not fully knowing how MFP did it's initial calculation.

    Now, how do I know how many calories I burn when I do P90X so I can factor that in properly =)
  • mamoth100
    mamoth100 Posts: 7
    Options
    This site might do it:

    http://p90xcalories.com/
  • morgansbeach
    morgansbeach Posts: 3 Member
    Options
    Yes the MFP is designed for your consumption of calories to LOSE weight (due to your height,weight, age, etc) - not maintain or gain weight.
    In theory you don't have to eat the extra calories you get after exercise but fatigue and extreme grumpiness are the end result. I know! I've tried to do that in past years to lose weight quicker. The end result for me was I would go on a binge of choccies and other high carb foods as I was STARVING!
    Also water is my saving grace.
    Just had breakfast and a snack and was still feeling hungry. Hang on - no water! Just had 3 cups and feel full.
    Good luck with your weight loss journey.
  • Purplebunnysarah
    Purplebunnysarah Posts: 3,252 Member
    Options
    How heavy are you? At 220 lbs, I would burn 400-600 calories during PlyoX (before baby). I have trouble believing you're burning 1700 calories doing PlyoX alone... you might want to get a new HRM or change your battery.
  • cupcakes_and_cardio
    cupcakes_and_cardio Posts: 369 Member
    Options
    In your case I would see the workout as being beneficial for increasing muscle and a toned body..

    Calorie deficit for weightloss..

    Agreed. Keep up the good work, you're doing great
  • mamoth100
    mamoth100 Posts: 7
    Options
    How heavy are you? At 220 lbs, I would burn 400-600 calories during PlyoX (before baby). I have trouble believing you're burning 1700 calories doing PlyoX alone... you might want to get a new HRM or change your battery.

    The HRM has always said 1,700 on Plyo X from the beginning. =) But the p90x calories site says 900 - 1,100. I'm 260.

    Could very well be my HRM is just not good. But it wasn't a cheap one either.

Categories