Do you have to eat the Calories from your exercise?

you can't eat less than 1200.
you must eat your exercise calories.

Being over on protein is typically a good thing.

Check your sodium and make sure you're drinking enough water.

If that's not working, then try eating your exercise calories for a couple of weeks and see if the stall is over. No one forces you to do anything here so you don't "have" to eat them, but since it helps a lot of people lose, there's a good chance that you'll "want" to.

1200 NET calories. (its a number listed on your homepage in the summary box to the right hand side)

I'm in the same boat you are!!!! I will say from experience that I am beginning to believe you do have to eat those extra calories. I eat only 1200 per day and they are 1200 VERY healthy calories. Last week I burned 2600 calories and I actually gained a pound!!! I am beginning to believe the ideas about your body going into starvation mode. It worked when I was younger, but as you get older and your metabolism changes it just insn't the same! I don't think, however, that I will eat ALL of the extra calories, but maybe change from 1200 per day to 1500. I don't know. . .just experiment and see what works best, but 1.5 pounds is a healhty amount to lose so keep up the good work!

You may want to eat a few more calories a day as a whole or at least your exercise cals. If you don't take in enough your body goes into shut down mode and wont let the weight go. It is also hard to keep up the lifestyle on too few cals. Thats just what I have read. Good Luck!!!:happy: :happy:

I personally only eat up to 200 of my exercise calories back. Since my BMR is 1500 and my intake is 1200, that 300 calorie deficit would only cause a 1/2 pound loss per week. Not eating them back has worked for me. I typically burn 1,000 calories per day 5x a week that way I can lose about 2 lbs per week.

my biggest concern with eating exercise calories, like Charlea mentioned, are you using a digital food scale to weigh your food? Are you using a hrm to count your calories or do you use the numbers on mfp or on the machines at the gym? There is about a 10% error up or down on the machines. I try not to eat back every single calorie because you might be doing yourself an injustice if you have miscalculated somewhere either from the machines or from your food portions.
I hope this helps.

You can't address the "should you eat back your calories" without the "can we accurately estimate calories burned during activity and exercise" question.

Empirically, there is data that suggests that cutting net calories too severely can have a negative impact on fat loss, so the general rule of thumb is to "replace those exercise calories".

And, empirically, that might be true. But, in reality, most of us only have a rough approximation of what we are burning during activity and exercise. In addition, there are errors in calculating our energy intake. A lot of the accounts I see here of calories burned during exercise are greatly exaggerated.

A number of research studies have shown that when people reduce their calorie intake and/or start an exercise program, they decrease their overall daily activity.

So, if an individual overestimates calories burned during exercise, reduces total daily activity, and then consistently eats back all of their exercise calories.....well, I think you can see where this will lead.

Conversely, those who say they only eat back a portion of their workout calories are likely undercounting their activity.

So while someone might assert, with scientific evidence, that one MUST eat back all of their exercise calories, in reality, there is almost no way of keeping that accurate a measurement.

Which means that, in practical terms, there is no absolute answer. Whatever plan you use, you need to pay attention to the changes happening in your body and be flexible enough to change your "ideology" in the face of new facts.

Agreed. Plus, this might be helpful to you: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/TrainerRobin/view/myth-or-fact-calories-in-versus-calories-out-3500-calories-one-pound-and-should-i-eat-my-exercise-calories-62012

Hope that helps!

You can't address the "should you eat back your calories" without the "can we accurately estimate calories burned during activity and exercise" question.

Empirically, there is data that suggests that cutting net calories too severely can have a negative impact on fat loss, so the general rule of thumb is to "replace those exercise calories".

And, empirically, that might be true. But, in reality, most of us only have a rough approximation of what we are burning during activity and exercise. In addition, there are errors in calculating our energy intake. A lot of the accounts I see here of calories burned during exercise are greatly exaggerated.

A number of research studies have shown that when people reduce their calorie intake and/or start an exercise program, they decrease their overall daily activity.

So, if an individual overestimates calories burned during exercise, reduces total daily activity, and then consistently eats back all of their exercise calories.....well, I think you can see where this will lead.

Conversely, those who say they only eat back a portion of their workout calories are likely undercounting their activity.

So while someone might assert, with scientific evidence, that one MUST eat back all of their exercise calories, in reality, there is almost no way of keeping that accurate a measurement.

Which means that, in practical terms, there is no absolute answer. Whatever plan you use, you need to pay attention to the changes happening in your body and be flexible enough to change your "ideology" in the face of new facts.

Agreed. Plus, this might be helpful to you: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/TrainerRobin/view/myth-or-fact-calories-in-versus-calories-out-3500-calories-one-pound-and-should-i-eat-my-exercise-calories-62012

Hope that helps!

Your blog is nicely written. I ran into Dr Hall's research about 18 mos ago and actually have one of his studies describing his model. I never got the time to go back and dissect it enough to write a cogent summary, but I have used the general theory ever since.

His research is another reason why I have problems with the gross overuse of the term (and concept of) "starvation mode".

IMO, the psychological reinforcement and motivation that an obese person might get from seeing more rapid weight loss can in some cases offset the transient negative effects of a lower-calorie diet. And those effects can usually be reversed. The concern is that such a person would need guidance to know when to change their strategy as their body composition changed.

I know in my case, one of the things that originally kept me from feeling motivated to start my program was the idea that it would take a year or more to come close to my goal. (Ultimately what got me going was some adverse blood lab results). As it turned out, I ended up losing an average of almost 4lb/wk for the first 8 weeks. (I didn't go super low calorie--more like 1400-1800/day, but I burned a high number of cals in exercise and activity--and did not eat much of that back). From what I could tell, there were no adverse metabolic effects, but, even if there were, I would gladly have traded that for the reinforcement of the more rapid weight loss. And, if there were, they resolved quickly after I switched to my "maintenance" plan.

As others have said, I think there are different approaches for different people and we should be careful about the casual use of fitness "cliches".