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

OP I took a look at your diary, I only went a few days back. It does not seem like you are weighing your food, one entry even had 1scoop as a measurement, you also have a ton of exercise calories logged...MFP and gym machines usually over estimate by a large margin. Weight loss is pure math you must burn more than you consume, it does not matter to the equation how you accomplish this.

The swings you are seeing on the scale are normal swing not fat loss, like others have stated. Logging your food (accurately) and eating 50% of exercise calories (closer to actual burn) will result in weight loss.

You also will not put on lean body mass while in a deficient, cardio also burns lean body mass but is very efficient at calorie burning. Strength training while in a deficient is important to maintain the lean body mass that you have.

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.

^^^^

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.

I agree with you. I have to play about a million mind games on myself, such as weighing myself in kilograms instead of pounds. For those people who find losing weight as simple as a basic math equation, that's great. But it sure as heck ain't that simple for me.

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 ;-)

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.

What you are not recognizing here is that the average increased by 300 calories IN AVERAGE. It's not an exponential figure, meaning, it does not keep increasing by 300 every year.

I will give you myself as an example. When I first started losing weight, my maintenance calories were around 2600. Now they are 2100. If I were to increase my calories by 500 I would eventually get back to my starting weight then my weight would settle and I would stop gaining. I would still be eating 500 calories more than I do now to maintain, but I won't be gaining anything extra unless I increase my calories further.

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.

Here is a good example of why I believe what tolks are swying. My girlfiend & I both joined WW at the same time. We pretty much did everything the same, by eatng about the same things. The main difference was, she worked out. I did not. We lost almost the same amount of weight. She was not happy about that. She dd look more fit, though.

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

If exercise is the only cause of your weight loss, then you'd be eating at maintenance and your deficit is only being created by calories burned through exercise.

Yep!

Personally I'll say keep doing what works until it doesn't. I really don't think OP is starving himself. He's most likely eating more than he thinks! Start weighing everything and logging accurately then complain about having to eat 1800 calories plus exercise. Hahah