Exercise and weight loss……im confused

Thanks for asking the question- AND for the answer!! I was wondering this myself as today is my first day logging and i now have almost 700 calories more to eat!! I hope i can get them in, but it's basically time for bed, im exhausted, and dont even know if i can eat more...anyway, sorry for the extra info, lol..Just wanted to say thanks!!

I do not follow their reccomendation, right or wrong. I have been eating between 1200 and 1400 calories a day and burn between 500 and 1000 calories a day in exercise. It is working for me. I do not find myself tired, and have went from 200 pounds to 180 pounds in 6 weeks. I can see better definition as I am both lifting weights and doing cardio, was mostly walking and eliptical, but just started zumba. On a side note, it's kind of cool being the only guy in a zumba class with 20 or so women.

Eating 1200 calories and burning 200 leaves you with a net of 1000, which is too low. So you need to eat them back to get you back to 1200. And you will STILL lose at 1200 calories because you would normally be eating around 2000-2500 on a normal day. So you are still getting your deficit in calorie intake to reach your weight loss goal. The reason they want you to eat the workout calories back is to make sure you don't go too low.
So basically 1200 is the minimum with or without exercise. If you exercise, you need to make sure your net calories are at least 1200. Exercising helps speed up your metabolism, builds muscle, tones, and basically allows you to eat more and still lose the same amount of weight.
Hope that helps.

I asked this question a few days ago and I got a lot of great answers, give me a minute and I'll find the link and post it!

I have posted on this topic in the past and I agree with not re eating all of your exercise calories. I was hoping someone high up in MFP could point to some scientific evidence for the way MFP does it. I agree don't go to low but you don't need to eat it all back. the basic equation is calories in vs calories out. Calories in would be your food.intake. Calories out would be your BMR plus exercise. if you have a negative caloric balance then you lose weight. if you have a positive caloric balance then you gain weight.

studies have been done were patients have been on 500 calorie diets and lost weight ( I in no way am advocating for this) and they lost weight. they were more likely to regain it and they ended up missing some vital nutrients. That is why life style change is important and to eat a balanced diet.

to my knowledge there is no scientific study comparing weight lose in patients who have a caloric deficit from food restriction compared to food restriction and exercise were the last group eats more food but has the vital nutrients in food which is what a lot of us are doing.

someone in MFP please chime in and shed some light on the subject. this comes up a lot.

I think it truly depends on the person personally. Sort of like the some diets work for some people and some just don't at all. I think we are trying to make it too complicated. Try it for a month with eatting half of your exercise calories back. If your unsatisfied with your weight loss than do away with your exercise calories. From my own personal experience, BOTH have worked for me. I would say that lately I've gone to eatting half my exercise calories and my weight loss has been slower, but effective. I found I had bigger drops in weight when I didn't eat my exercise calories, BUT felt i craved things more. Do a lil trial and error.

Mike

you will loose weight at that rate. My calorie intake is supposed to be 1470 per day. I exercise 30 minutes a day. Last week was my first week at doing this and I had a loss. I was so proud of myself, because I loose so slowly, that it is discouraging sometimes. Hope you have a good week.

I think Dr Oz explained it well on his show yesterday (1/10/11). Go to his site if you have the time and watch it. Basically your body is looking for NUTRITION from your food. If your food doesn't supply what the body is looking for it will canabalize its own tissues to get it. When you do this you are losing muscle tissue that burns the calories. When you lose muscle tissue you are slowing your weight loss. You have to keep the body fueled correctly to keep it operating without turning to its own tissues to get it.

It was difficult for me to understand as well but let me try to explain. Let's say I put in that I want to lose 2 pounds per week and MFP gives me a daily calorie goal of 1300. So if I only eat the 1300 calories I'm still going to lose. So then let's say I workout and burn off 700 calories. If I eat those back plus my daily 1300, my net caloric consumption for the day is 1300(because the workout canceled itself out by the 700 I ate back) but you will still lose because 1300 calories yields a loss of 2 pounds a week, make sense?

So then it may seem that you are exercising for no reason but this is not true. Exercising boosts your metabolic rate so that you are burning mire calories at rest than if you did not exercise. Sometimes i don't eat back all the calories I burn and sometimes I do but either way I still lose because I'm already eating the minimum number of calories I need to lose 2 pounds per week at 1300 per day. Geez, I've started to confuse myself!!

So then it may seem that you are exercising for no reason but this is not true. Exercising boosts your metabolic rate so that you are burning mire calories at rest than if you did not exercise. Sometimes i don't eat back all the calories I burn and sometimes I do but either way I still lose because I'm already eating the minimum number of calories I need to lose 2 pounds per week at 1300 per day. Geez, I've started to confuse myself!!

You're totally right.

I've got a great example of why exercise is so important. Something I've had to learn the hard way. Hopefully I'm explaining it properly, because I'm by no means an expert (and I'm trying to explain based on what I've read and learned from others).

Ten years ago, I weighed between 119 and 125 pounds. I spent a lot of time dancing and doing physical things- so I was pretty nicely 'toned', as they say. My body fat percentage was probably about 25% and I felt I looked pretty good. I wasn't buff and certainly was no supermodel, but I was healthy.

I gained a bunch of weight after having kids and started really actively trying to lose weight in November of 2009. I worked out a lot between then and February 2010- lost quite a bit of weight (about twenty pounds) and started to gain good muscle definition... gradually. Then I took a part-time job on top of my full-time job and stopped working out. Still watched what I ate, but never had the time for exercise. In that time I lost another ten pounds or so... but the weight loss was different this time.

The first twenty pounds I lost was done properly- through diet and exercise, eating back most of my exercise calories. So while I was losing weight, I was also nourishing my body and giving my body what it needed to repair itself. Most of what I was losing was actually FAT mass. My muscles, underneath the fat, were healthy and strong.

The last ten pounds, I've lost through diet alone. And not even a great 'diet'. I've eaten some junk. There were days where I would eat breakfast, but forget to pack a lunch. I'd work a nine and a half hour shift with no real food, and when I got hungry I'd eat a chocolate bar. I'd eat a good dinner, but never consume nearly as much after work as I burned at work. Yes, I lost weight- but I started feeling weak, my hair and skin looked kind of dead, and I was tired all the time. Also, eventually, the weight stopped coming off. The lowest I got was 131 pounds (6 from my initial goal) and the scale would NOT budge any further.

Now I'm finding myself in a position where I have to fix my metabolism- which is going to take some work. If I eat ANY junk, I gain weight almost instantly (whereas when I was working out, I could 'slip up' every so often and still see a loss). I'm at 134.5 right now.

Here's the thing- when I was this same weight years back (after having gained a bit of weight, though I was still more active than I am now) I looked way thinner. This was because my BF% was lower than it is now. What's happened is, as a result of not eating enough, or exercising enough, I've lost muscle. So instead of being a toned 134.5, I'm a flabby and jiggly 134.5 . Does that make sense?

I went out in a bathing suit the other day and still felt flabby and gross. Initially I was blaming my 'loose skin' but I've since learned that that's probably not what it is. It's just that my muscles are weak, and they're still covered in fat. That last ten pounds or so I lost was partially fat- but partially muscle. Which you don't want to lose.

This is the problem with scales, and the focus on 'getting that number down'. Because I'm living proof that the number isn't everything. People are so focused on getting that scale to go DOWN- as quickly as possible, by any means necessary- that they tend to neglect what really matters... and that's our health. I've since altered my weight goals to acknowledge the fact that I have a lot more FAT still to lose. But I'm also at a point where I'm not even 100% sure what the right 'weight' for me is. If I keep doing what I was doing before, I might lose- but I'll be a flabby, jiggly 120-pound girl. Which I don't want.

My new goal is to lose FAT, even if it means gaining weight. I would like to get myself to about 20% bodyfat. Once this happens, I don't care what the final number on the scale is- because I'll be able to physically see the results. And, the fact is, I'm not going to get the SHAPE that I want by cutting calories alone, or by not eating my exercise calories (ie- starving myself). I've been there, I've seen what happens when my body is deprived of nutrition, and I don't want to go back. I'm only ever going to get the SHAPE that I want by working out, and eating my exercise calories so I'm still getting a deficit but also giving my body what it needs. Oh, the calories should be good ones- not chocolate bars or chips or the like.