WHY does this site suggest that you eat your exercise calori

It's simple math. Let's say your goal is 1200 calories a day. You need to have 1200 calories a day to avoid "starvation mode." If you do no exercise at all, then you should be eating 1200 or so calories. If you DO exercise, you are burning calories and thus subtracting from your 1200. If you burn 200 calories in exercising, then you have only had 1000 calories for the day (1200-200=1000). You need to maintain at least 1200 calories, and if your total for the day ends up less than 1200, the site will say you aren't eating enough.

Yeah this really is the question for the ages ... but calories are energy and if you burn energy you need to replace energy (calories). The more you eat of your allotted calories the faster you will lose, if you starve yourself your body will want to hold on to every last calorie you have consumed and you won't lose, you will become frustrated and will want to quit. I see so many people with base calorie allotments of 1200-1500 and they exercise and burn 1000+ but they are only eating 900 calories .. .sure they are going to lose weight but they are losing muscle not fat ... it won't last long and they will stop losing weight. Do what the site says, it really works.

I have been here since the beginning of September and have been listening to the site (and my body) and have lost 13.8lbs thus far.

yeah but when most people read "eat back calories" it doesn't mean eat as much crap as you can to get your caloric intake up...i have a hard time reaching my max after i work out, because i work out at night...so i try and eat high fibre, high protein and tons of veggies, if i'm under my calorie goal at the end of the night, i don't worry about it...i'm still healthy and i'm not starving

yeah but when most people read "eat back calories" it doesn't mean eat as much crap as you can to get your caloric intake up...i have a hard time reaching my max after i work out, because i work out at night...so i try and eat high fibre, high protein and tons of veggies, if i'm under my calorie goal at the end of the night, i don't worry about it...i'm still healthy and i'm not starving

I agree.....I workout at night too....so I eat lunch as my big meal of the day and plan the rest accordingly. I don't eat back my exercise calories and I am not starving or putting my body into "starvation mode" either. I think it is a personal choice whether you do or don't eat back those calories. It works for some and others it doesn't......me well I am one it doesn't work for.

Simple, to avoid starvation mode and YES eventually your body will go into starvation mode if you net less than 1200 calories over a long period of time. How long? Google it.

The minimum 1200 calories recommended for women is NET so if you only eat 1200 and burn 300 your body is undernourished (with only 900 calories to use) and overtime your metabolism will slow and your body goes into self preservation mode.

how does it go against what you've always known? growing up I've always known that to lose a lb a week, I need to create a calorie deficit of 500 calories, one way or another, from my calories needed to maintain. That's all MFP is doing - it's calculating the calories you need to have to lose weight = for some reason it only wants me to create a 400 calorie deficit, so i do see your point. it can be frustrating to want to lose weight more quickly and maybe i will need to do so if i can, but for me the amount of calories i get on this diet seem just right. if i don't workout i'm bummed because i'm usually out of calories. granted, i don't live on fruits and veggies alone, so some of my foods are more calorie rich - i eat what i like to eat, w/ portion control.

I've been following MFP for two months now and have lost ~21 lbs (set to lose 2lbs/week). Just doing what MFP says, I'm pretty much right on target. Previously, I've cut calories and exercised and while I would lose 10lbs or so doing that, I would hit a plateau and flat out stop losing.

I've hit my first goal while dieting only and I start adding in exercise next week, which means I'll be eating exercise calories this time around. I know it does sound and even feel a bit odd to eat more to continue losing, but remember that w/o the exercise, you are already feeding your body less than it needs (forcing it to take from storage(fat)). If you use even more calories, you'll pull from fat even quicker but also start pulling from that same muscle you're trying to build up/get into shape.

If you only do this for a couple of days, no big deal and your body won't really care. If it continues though, your body will think you aren't able to get enough food so it will do several things (from what I understand): Slow you down (metabolism), put as much as it can to fat, and make energy by burning off muscle. That's why I've failed in the past - you hit that wall and your own body won't let you through. So if you continue to eat below a certain threshold you won't gain muscle and you won't lose fat.

LOL WOW I finally get it. Thanks!!

I see what you're saying. There are two different ways to create a calorie deficit which equates to weight loss over time...

You can eat less calories or you can burn more calories
Or you can do a combination of the two.

This site calculates the lowest NET calories that you need in order to lose weight effectively and healthily. For example, I need 1600 calories to maintain my current weight, but I want to lose weight, so I am allowed a minimum of 1200 calories a day. At the end of the day I need to have eaten no more or less than 1200 calories. If I eat less than 1200 calories, I'm starving myself. If I eat more than 1200 calories, well, I just won't lose weight as quickly.

If I eat my 1200 calories, and then exercise and burn 200 calories, I have a NET of 1000 calories, which is not enough calories for me, and I'm essentially starving myself, especially if I do this regularlry. I need to eat back those 200 calories to get back up to 1200, which is still 400 below my maintanence calories.

Now, I could choose to eat 1600 calories and exercise to burn 400 calories, still putting me at my Net goal of 1200.

It's all in the way you look at it...

Hope this makes sense.

Liking the thread... Thanks.

It totally makes sense.

here are all the answers:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/23912-links-in-mfp-you-want-to-read-again-and-again :bigsmile:

best of luck!

Banks does say this:
"As I have hinted to throughout this summary of metabolic process, the body has a "range" in which it feels it is receiving the right amount of fuel. The range (as most doctors and research scientists agree) is somewhere between 500 calories above your maintenance calories and 1000 calories below your maintenance calories. This means that the metabolism won't drastically change it's functionality in this range, with that said, this is not exact, it is a range based on averages, you may have a larger or smaller range based on the 3 factors of metabolism stated at the top. "

Doesn't that mean that if we are only set to have a 500 cal deficit we can exercise away the other 500? Where does the net 1200 come from?

Don't get lost in the expression "starvation mode"

We hear starvation mode and immediately envision pictures of emaciated people. To me, "starvation mode" begins with my body subtly storing fat as an act of self preservation. Loss of body weight slows as my metabolism slows down. Though I'll probably continue to lose weight, its a slow process. The charts show that I need 1900+ calories a day, with my lifestyle, to lose a pound a week. For a long time I believed that less would equal more so I cut back to about 1200 calories a day. The result was virually no weight loss for about a month. I went back to a minimum of 1900 calories and the weight loss returned to about a pound a week. With more exercise I burn more calories therefore my body needs to consume more. Now I try to eat at least 50% my exercise calories but don't worry if that number occassionaly approaches 100%. I also try to eat something (even a small snack) several times a day to keep the fires stoked and burning.

Just my opinion