Burning and Eating Calories back, what's the point!

:noway:

Here is a simple way to put it, a female needs around 1200 calories a day just to survive and not start to lose muscle mass and a male needs about 1800 calories. If you are currently eating 1800 calories and not exercising then you are good but if you are exercising then you are not netting 1800 calories a day so as someone else said you will start to lose lean muscle mass which is not a good thing.

People like to call in starvation mode but that is not correct (don't remember the proper name for what happens). If you go for a couple of months without eating a net of around 1800 calories a day your body will start to react badly and may not lose weight (this depends on the person).

Well I don't really understand TDEE or BMR but what I do know is that when I work out at night then I'm typically lower in weight the next morning and I typically have a decent workout deficit (400-600 calories for that day) When I consume my 1850 calories for the day without working out or sometimes create a deficit on that number from consuming less calories then the 1850 I'm typically heavier each morning. Its weird but I feel as if I can't lose weight without excercising even if I consume less then my needed daily calories of 1850. I feel like from working out at night my body burns more calories throughout that night and that is what leads to the scale continuing to drop. I also noticed that when I workout in the morning I typically either way the same or have substantially less weight loss then if I would have worked out in the evening. I guess that is what let me to the decision of working out 2 times a day for a few weeks (morning and evening) and seeing what type of results occur.

How long did it take you to lose that 26 lb and how much of it did you lose before you decided that you needed to add in exercise?

I am 5' 10" and started at 238 lb and was a couch potato. Lost the first 30 lbs or so without exercise and the rest has been lost eating back what I think are an accurate estimation of my calorie burns. I even started on a similar calorie goal to you, in hind sight I lost a bit too fast, have a little loose skin which might have been avoided and am sure that I lost a little more lean mass than I needed to

Don't try and do this too fast

I will jump in here. The reason you work out, cardio or weight training, is to get fit. You can lose weight without being fit. If you only goal is weight loss then, sure starve yourself and you'll be thin in no time. But don't confuse thin with healthy. Running, burns calories but it works your heart and muscles. Strength training builds muscle which makes you stronger, look better, and burn more fat. However any workouts require calories to power it. there is a whole science to feeding your workouts that we won't get into here. This site focuses on caloric deficit which is a good measure of how much weight you will lose but there is more to fitness than a number on a scale.

I went from 265 to 245 within a couple of months last year but stopped working out (and tracking my calories and pretty much dieting) and went back to 258 as of April of this year.

The real story here is that you're not paying attention to your calorie demand vs. food consumed. Work out to be in better health/shape, watch your calories to control your weight.

As one wise person once said, diet to look good in your clothes. Exercise to look good naked. - True story.

i realize that i will be probably the only one saying this and maybe I'm nuts but I just don't believe in the science or fact that I have to eat back the calories I burned. I don't lose weight when I don't work out, bottom line. When I do workout especially at night I notice that in the morning I am lighter and depending on my eating I'm usually >6 to sometimes 2 pounds lighter. I went from 265 to 245 within a couple of months last year but stopped working out (and tracking my calories and pretty much dieting) and went back to 258 as of April of this year. I've been working out and dieting for the last 55 days and so far I've lost about 19 pounds. I feel as if my metabolism kicks up by me working out and the deficit in calories equate to my weigh loss. Mind you growing up I was always skinny and atheletic so I don't know how that contributes to it but I just can't believe that if I just ate 1850 calories every day that I would lose weight within the near future if at all.

How you feel is pretty irrelevant to the physiological facts of how your body works.

If you consumed less calories than you burned, even while not working out, you'd lose weight. Even if you "felt" like you wouldn't.

If I put you in a room, tied you up, gave you no food, only water, trust me, you'd lose.

i realize that i will be probably the only one saying this and maybe I'm nuts but I just don't believe in the science or fact that I have to eat back the calories I burned. I don't lose weight when I don't work out, bottom line. When I do workout especially at night I notice that in the morning I am lighter and depending on my eating I'm usually >6 to sometimes 2 pounds lighter. I went from 265 to 245 within a couple of months last year but stopped working out (and tracking my calories and pretty much dieting) and went back to 258 as of April of this year. I've been working out and dieting for the last 55 days and so far I've lost about 19 pounds. I feel as if my metabolism kicks up by me working out and the deficit in calories equate to my weigh loss. Mind you growing up I was always skinny and atheletic so I don't know how that contributes to it but I just can't believe that if I just ate 1850 calories every day that I would lose weight within the near future if at all.

You are thinking of it wrong.
Your maintenance on non-exercise day is 2800, your daily goal is 1800 - 1000 cal deficit.
Your maintenance on exercise day is 3400, your daily goal is now 2400 - 1000 cal deficit.
Exercise is just part of your daily burn, part of maintenance.

You are imagining a bigger deficit is better.

If you truly believe that way - why don't you just stop eating?

Of course you are lighter in the morning - guess what your primary fuel was - glycogen.
Guess what it stores with in the muscles - water.
You lost water weight, and some glycogen - that your diet just hasn't happened to top back off yet with one evening meal.
Big whoop, I can lose 15 lbs in water on a 4 hr bike ride in the summer.
Guess what's coming back, and was really useless weight loss in the first place.

So, if your deficit that MFP already put in to your eating goal (1000 calories?) and your exercise burn that you are not eating back, is equaling the amount you are losing, great. Should be just over 2 lbs weekly.
If you aren't, you are terrible at logging food and your exercise is making up for eating more than you log, that's all.

Then again - what exactly is the weight you are losing? Unless you get a DEXA scan, you have no idea. Merely studies that have shown larger deficit are all too prone to causing muscle mass loss.
Perhaps you are the unique one. You'll find at at the end, if you reach goal weight, and have to eat much less than you imagined because of loss of muscle.

If you are really confident in your food logging, and your exercise burns, and you aren't losing what both deficits should be causing - you've likely already started down that road.

People just trying to warn those that hadn't thought about it.

i realize that i will be probably the only one saying this and maybe I'm nuts but I just don't believe in the science or fact that I have to eat back the calories I burned. I don't lose weight when I don't work out, bottom line. When I do workout especially at night I notice that in the morning I am lighter and depending on my eating I'm usually >6 to sometimes 2 pounds lighter. I went from 265 to 245 within a couple of months last year but stopped working out (and tracking my calories and pretty much dieting) and went back to 258 as of April of this year. I've been working out and dieting for the last 55 days and so far I've lost about 19 pounds. I feel as if my metabolism kicks up by me working out and the deficit in calories equate to my weigh loss. Mind you growing up I was always skinny and atheletic so I don't know how that contributes to it but I just can't believe that if I just ate 1850 calories every day that I would lose weight within the near future if at all.

Ahhhhh I thought like you once.... those were the days. I eat 50% of my exercise calories and I have lost 33 pounds in 14 weeks. That is not to be sneezed at. Never felt hungry, never the need to cheat or the like

When you start to plateau, you will know this is a big reason

Good luck!

i realize that i will be probably the only one saying this and maybe I'm nuts but I just don't believe in the science or fact that I have to eat back the calories I burned. I don't lose weight when I don't work out, bottom line. When I do workout especially at night I notice that in the morning I am lighter and depending on my eating I'm usually >6 to sometimes 2 pounds lighter. I went from 265 to 245 within a couple of months last year but stopped working out (and tracking my calories and pretty much dieting) and went back to 258 as of April of this year. I've been working out and dieting for the last 55 days and so far I've lost about 19 pounds. I feel as if my metabolism kicks up by me working out and the deficit in calories equate to my weigh loss. Mind you growing up I was always skinny and atheletic so I don't know how that contributes to it but I just can't believe that if I just ate 1850 calories every day that I would lose weight within the near future if at all.

I TOTALLY get what you're saying, I am very similar in what you've described. If I want to lose weight, I HAVE to exercise. It never works if I just try to restrict my eating and count calories, but here's the thing; I CAN'T successfully restrict my eating if I am not also exercising. If I'm simply calorie counting, I'm feeling low and deprived and I quickly lose my motivation to continue so I give up and continue on as I always have. So in order for me to be successful at losing weight, I simply MUST exercise. When I excercise, it makes me feel good. It makes me feel proud and it makes me WANT to eat better, and eat less. Working out gives me the motivation that I need to keep going. Without it, no I would not lose weight. I would simply give up. Maybe your working out vs. not working out has similar effects for you.

That all being said, the past few weeks I saw that many of my friends were doing 1000 plus workouts in a day. I thought, WOW. I should be doing that. So I did it, and felt pretty cool for a couple of days, until one day I did not eat back enough workout calories and I felt like a limp noodle the next day. All I saying, is, yes, work out, it's great. But you DO need to eat back some of your workout calories or it can one day come back to bite you in the butt. Just listen to your body. If you are ever feeling weakened, eat more. It's important. If you have TONS of energy every day then I would guess that your body is somehow utilizing what you are doing pretty efficiently. I personally don't believe in a one size fits all diet plan. Because losing weight is both physical and mental, only you know what works best for you.

Best of luck and great job on all your hard work! :happy:

You could solve this conundrum by one simple step: set yourself as active instead of sedentary, this way you won't have to eat your calories back.

Weight loss is pure math you must burn more than you consume, it does not matter to the equation how you accomplish this.

Weight loss is not pure math, wtf.

Weight loss is pure math you must burn more than you consume, it does not matter to the equation how you accomplish this.

Weight loss is not pure math, wtf.

Yes it is, a calorie is a unit of energy and the calculations for weight loss is simply calories in - calories out = if it is a negative you lose weight, if it is zero you maintain and if it is a positive you gain. It is math and not even complex math at that, just some elementary school addition.

Fitness and nutrition are more complex but thermal dynamics that follow the laws of energy are math at their core.

ETA the math comment was for the OP that said he did not believe the science, this was not about peoples emotions or health conditions. If you eat in a deficient you lose weight...that is a fact, nobody said that was easy. Easy or hard does not change the fact that it is a math problem, this is why MFP can use an algorithm (math equation)

I don't lose weight when I don't work out, bottom line.

Imagine telling all the starving people of the world, "Don't exercise! That way you won't lose weight and die--bottom line!" Sounds silly when you put it that way, no? Your body, like a car, burns fuel simply being on. If you eat less than you burn, you lose weight. No exercise is needed to lose weight. That's really how your body works, whether or not you read up on it. Now, time for me to eat a post-workout snack!

I will jump in here. The reason you work out, cardio or weight training, is to get fit. Strength training builds muscle which makes you stronger, look better, and burn more fat.

The above's why I made a midnight gym raid tonight.

Yes it is, a calorie is a unit of energy and the calculations for weight loss is simply calories in - calories out = if it is a negative you lose weight, if it is zero you maintain and if it is a positive you gain. It is math and not even complex math at that, just some elementary school addition.

USDA reports that average American daily calorie intake has increased by 300 since the 70s. If you reduce this to "elementary math," the average 30-40 year old American should weigh more than 1000lbs. I hate it that so many people here reduce weight loss to "simple math" in a very condescending tone to others. Calories do matter in weight loss but so does hormonal responses in the body among many other things.

Remember that two generations ago, nobody knew what a calorie was let alone counted them and the rates of overweight were twenty times lower than they are today. Counting calories cannot be required to stay slim.

It is not meant to be condesending, it was trying to simplify it for someone that doesn't believe the science. Even with hormonal and other health issues, it is still math. Certain health issues can lower the amount that the body burns, so it is much easier for that person to overeat, other health conditions can make it so someone feels hungry when in fact they have had enough, they still consumed more than they burned even though their body sent the wrong message. It is still an equation, some just have variables thrown in that makes weight loss more difficult for them.

In the 70's portions were smaller...much smaller and there was also less quick high calorie choices. At a 300 calorie increase over maintenance someone would gain about 31.28 lbs per year (300*365=109,500/3500=31.285 lbs.) it takes more calories to support a larger body so yes the average can go up and the obesity rate can sky rocket and the morbidly obese can drastically increase (not many 40-50 yrs ago) these larger bodies have a maintenance caloric need well over 300 calories above the maintenance of a healthy bmi (not the best thing but works here). So no they would not weigh 1000lbs.

2 generations ago, families ate home cooked meals the kids didn't have piles of junk food filling the cabinets; they ran up to the store and got a small snack for a few cents. Mom also told them to save room for dinner and knew how to say "no, you don't need that". People walked more places and even what we find a healthy bmi now they thought was fat. People did know to eat " healthy" (what they really did was make a deficient). Personally I was always someone that never thought about my weight and always was small even after 2 kids, then 3 yrs ago I started having an extra snack every night and was less active. I thought my Dr. Would find something for sure...nope it was me, I ate more and got lazy so I gained. That was my wake up call. Before I never dieted or even thought about what I ate, but I never over ate and rarely snacked, I was also active. You can be thin without counting (if healthy) because of habits. Back then eating in moderation and being active was the norm. Now not so much....my grandma would be sick if she was to see what a "super size" meal is.

I really meant no harm with my post, just wanted the OP to see that his intake was higher than he thought and his burns over estimated or simply put he was intaking more than he believed to have the deficient he thought he had. He stated science so science was used back. If it insulted you I am sorry but I stand by the fact that it all boils down to math, even when you throw some variables in. That does not mean that for some it is not extremely hard because of some tight numbers, just that regardless of variables it is numbers.

ETA form and about back in the day ;-)