Help me understand!!

Hourglass25 · January 2011

I have noticed that many people are working out and not eating their extra calories. To my understanding if you work out you should be eating more, wouldn't you go into starvation mode if you are eating less than 1200 calories a day??

ssmom · January 2011

yea...you gotta eat. I tend to do better when I work out a little harder and eat a little more. Weird, but it works for me.

katbass · January 2011

This is from several posts yesterday, and I just copied and pasted it for convenience sake, so ignore the parts about exercise that dont pertain to your situation. But the BMR stuff is important

MFP sets your calories based on what you tell it. If you told it you want to lose 2lbs per week, its gonna go as low as 1200 calories. But thats not necessarily healthy or the right thing to do. Really...check out your BMR and stick to it:

Short answer: Try Searching this topic, as it has been discussed ad nausea here on the site.

Longer (but not nearly long enough) answer:
Your body requires a certain number of calories in order for you to simply exist. In order for you eyes to blink, your heart to keep beating, your hair to keep growing, your organs to keep functioning, you have to feed it a certain number of calories. This number is called your BMR. (Use the tool on this site to check your BMR..) For example, my BMR is about 1490 calories. So say I lay in bed allllll day, motionless. I would require 1490 calories just to keep my body alive in a coma-like state.
The second I get out of bed, walk across the room, open the door to the bathroom, brush my teeth, pee, weigh myself, turn on the hot water,and hop in the shower...I have burned calories. Minimal...but still enough to start cutting into the 1490 my body needs in order to fuel its most basic functions.

So if I eat my BMR of 1490 a day, I am only giving my body enough to do its basic functions.

MFP gave me 1200 calories based on my desire to lose 2 lbs a week. At my height and current weight, losing 2 lbs per week is not reasonable, but I wanted to lose FAST. And the lowest MFP will set someone's calories is 1200 (For many good reasons). 1200 is sort of an arbitrary number at this point but no one should really eat LESS than 1200, and there are likely very few people who could eat 1200 calories for the rest of their lives and maintain weight or stay satisfied. (opinion...sorry) I lost 20+ lbs eating 1200 cals a day. Wahoo! Yeah me!! Right? WRONG. The second I started eating "normal" again, I gained all 20+ lbs back, PLUS MORE. It might "work" in the short term, but for many here, 1200 calories isnt the lifestyle change needed to STAY healthy and thin.

OK, back to the exercise thing. If I eat my 1500 (1490) cals today, my body will already be at a deficit for weight loss since I got out of bed, functioned, walked, lifted my toddler countless times, etc. So if I were to workout and burn 500 calories this afternoon, my body would be at an even greater deficit, and risk pushing my body to panic. Once your body panics and your metabolism worries that you are not feeding it enough, you will start to store fat at a faster rate. Your body and metabolism will try to hang onto any extra store of fat in preparation for an upcoming "famine".

Another way to look at it: If you eat 1200 calories and then exercise 500 calories away, you are only holding onto 700 calories for your body to draw from for energy, organ function, eye blinking, etc etc. Its just not enough for your body to exist on without causing longterm troubles.

It took me a looooong time to "get" this. I still have to consciously remind myself to eat my calories in order to lose weight. It seems counter-intuitive...but it WORKS. When I eat my BMR and at LEAST half my exercise calories, I lose weight. When I only eat 1200 calories, I am miserable, hungry, and i might lose some weight initially...but i gain it alllll back with a few extra for fluffiness.

Bottom line: eat more, keep moving, lose more, keep it off
BMR + exercise calories = longterm success

Silky815 · January 2011

You are so right. When I don't eat 1200 cals a day, it always tells me I will go into starvation mode. Then, you don't lose any weight. I learned the hard way. I have been on here since October or November, and have lost only 13 pounds. Good luck to you. Add me as a friend if you want.

Meg28 · January 2011

I think there is a lot of "wiggle" room in this system. Personally, I feel they give me too many "extra" calories for exercise and often I (and probably others) are not totally accurate when entering just b/c you have to estimate intensity. For the most part, yes, eat more if you exercise hard, but I know I'll run for 45 minutes at an easy steady state and not truely "deserve" all the "extra. Just depends on your workout and how you feel.

RMinVA · January 2011

I think there is a lot of "wiggle" room in this system. Personally, I feel they give me too many "extra" calories for exercise and often I (and probably others) are not totally accurate when entering just b/c you have to estimate intensity. For the most part, yes, eat more if you exercise hard, but I know I'll run for 45 minutes at an easy steady state and not truely "deserve" all the "extra. Just depends on your workout and how you feel.

I completely agree. I just stick to a "sweet spot" of 1400-1600 calories. That seems to be optimum for me and for weight loss, regardless of how much exercise I do. I may eat a bit more on my long run days, but there are just way too many variables to make a solid case for "eating" exercise calories. It may be basic math, but it's definitely not an exact science.

bparr · January 2011

I read a post yesterday with a similar question-- and there were some really good post. I'll see if I can find it and post the link.

Azdak · January 2011

Unless you are capable of burning 900-1000 calories/hour --and you actually DO that in your workouts-- I find that it is better to focus on "refueling" or replenishing your body's fuel stores immediately after a workout, rather that worry about "eating back" exercise calories. Usually that means having a small meal of snack of 150-300 calories after a workout. If you are burning higher amounts, then maybe add a little more to another meal or snack later in the day.

The response to larger calorie deficits is going to vary--not only between individuals, but for the same individual under different conditions. Response is affected by amount of body fat, intensity of exercise, amount of weight lost, etc. In the beginning of a program, a person with high levels of body fat following a low to moderately vigorous program can often tolerate large calorie deficits without adverse consequences. After I lost my weight I went back and analyzed my program and realized that, for the first 8 weeks, I had an average calorie deficit of 1875 calories per day, on an eating plan of 1500-1800 calories per day. Basically, I was eating at my BMR and the deficit, on average, came via exercise and normal activity. Unfortunately, I didn't take any skinfold measurements when I started (Heck, I could barely stand to look in the mirror--I didn't need further documentation), so I cannot provide insight as to how my body composition changed. I know that I increased my 1 RM bench press about 75% during this time, so I don't think I was losing huge amounts of muscle, and my waist size went down about 5-6 inches, so I know I wasn't in any so-called "starvation mode". After I lost around 55-60lbs and got my body fat % down to 20%, things changed, as you would expect. That same program was no longer effective and I switched into a maintenance mode. I haven't lost anything since, primarily because I haven't focused on it like I did before and I series of nagging injuries has kept my workout routine in a bit of a holding pattern. At this point, almost 2 yrs since I started and 18 mos after I switched to maintenance, by BMR (measured my a metabolic cart) is perfectly average and I have about 5-8 more pounds of muscle than I did 26 years ago when I was 31.

Again, that's not for everyone--I didn't plan on such a large deficit, it just sort of happened. Like I said, it wasn't until after I looked back that I realized the daily deficit was that large. And it's not something I would recommend to anyone else. (However, I wouldn't tell anyone who was doing it this way to stop, either).

In short, while "starvation mode" can be real, I think it is highly overemphasized and poorly understood. What most people think of as "starvation mode" is usually a combination of high-volume, high-intensity workouts and very low calorie intake. It does not automatically happen if you eat 1199 calories or skip breakfast. In some cases "starvation mode" is just a convenient excuse for lack of success due to poor adherence. For others, it results from a combination of factors, not just lowered calorie intake alone.

In general, I think too many people go for the "1200 calorie" level as a first alternative because everyone thinks that is the path to fastest weight loss. I also think that the level of adherence is a lot poorer at that eating level. I see a lot of tickers and a lot of people in the 200-300lb range and, if that is you, you should probably not be at 1200 calories per day. Personally, I always recommend that people set more realistic and attainable calorie goals and then follow them rigidly.

Help me understand!!

Replies

Categories