Exercise calories controversy ???

I don't use my exercise to eat more, just to eat what I want. I still eat 1200 calories a day, but exercise so I can eat more fruit and not have a red number on my carbs cause I eat too many. I don't lose unless I eat a lot of fiber and fruit and veggies do it for me. I exercise to feel good.

I think erickirb has explained this very well! Thank you for your input!

Heres my take on it:
Before I had massive caloric defects -- the pounds melted away.
I reached my goal weight loss of 65 pounds but felt weak. This was due to the muscle I burned away.

I switched over to a low caloric deficit and added weight and actually ate more
The pounds returned at first
Over time I returned to the same goal weight with a lower bf / higher muscle ratio.
I feel great and I am eating more

So.. A lower deficit will yield better returns but not as quickly bc you will not lose as much muscle. Muscle is a good thing bc it increases your bmr!!

Agreed, so if you don't want to lose muscle, eat your exercise cals, or at least most of them

i was thinking exactly the same as you, if we burn calories why do we then need to eat more, it makes no sense.

Sometimes I eat half my exercising calories back, sometimes I don't. I also don't add up every little calorie I burn. If I clean my house for 3 hrs...........guess what I have a clean house. Wait I have 4 kids maybe I'll just have a picked up house lol. My point is I don't add those calories. I walk up and down stairs to do laundry at least 10 times a day I don't add that. I have my goals to workout 5 times a week and workout 6-7 times. I keep track of the calories burned but until I get my heart rate monitor I have no clue if those are even really accurate. All I know is I have logged in 35 days in a row as of today have lost 3 inches around my waist alone and ll lbs.....Today is weigh in so we will see if I lost more. Everybody is different so you really have to find out what works for you.

I have never eaten my exercise calories and lost weight every week, I know if I need to I can but it doesn't work for me to eat them, think you have to do what's best for you ;-)

I have never eaten my exercise calories and lost weight every week, I know if I need to I can but it doesn't work for me to eat them, think you have to do what's best for you ;-)

Losing muscle is not good for anyone. If you goal is set for 0.5 lb/week lose then it would be okay not to eat them as you caloric deficit would only be 250 cals, but for those that are set at 1.5 to 2 lbs/week should eat most of them to avoid burning muscle as fuel, instead of fat, which is really what you want to lose.

I found this online,
There are approximately 3500 calories in a pound of stored body fat. So, if you create a 3500-calorie deficit through diet, exercise or a combination of both, you will lose one pound of body weight. (On average 75% of this is fat, 25% lean tissue) If you create a 7000 calorie deficit you will lose two pounds and so on. The calorie deficit can be achieved either by calorie-restriction alone, or by a combination of fewer calories in (diet) and more calories out (exercise). This combination of diet and exercise is best for lasting weight loss. Indeed, sustained weight loss is difficult or impossible without increased regular exercise. If you want to lose fat, a useful guideline for lowering your calorie intake is to reduce your calories by at least 500, but not more than 1000 below your maintenance level


Seems like its just doing the math, I mean if you workout hard and burn over say 600 calories and are set at 1200 calorie intake could you really not pass out eating 600 net calories?? Not me, I get too hungry and I don't want to loose muscle, just fat, I eat back at least 1/2 of my workout calories. But what seemed more important was to eat more protein, to eat early and to eat every few hours. Everyone is different, I think you have to do what works right for you, just do the math and make sure you are at a safe and effective calorie deficit.

One other consideration that i havent seen mentioned thus far in this thread is how many calories (without exercise) your initial goal was.... If your initial goal was 1600 calories, you have much more wiggle-room to eat or not eat back exercise calories without falling below the 1200 NET minimum. The closer your initial goal is to 1200, the more important it is to eat back those exercise calories because you dont want to end under 1200 NET (routinely) and slip into a famine response which is your body preserving its fat stores, breaking down/burning muscle and lowering your metabolism rate.

Yes, you will continue to lose weight when your body is in famine response, but you will be losing about 50% of it in muscle and 50% in fat. Not what you're aiming for, i bet! On top of that, since metabolism lowers, when/if you fall off the wagon weight regain occurs much more quickly. Exercise preserves and builds muscle, raises metabolism, improves mood and energy levels and makes for a much healthier body in the long-run. Its incredibly beneficial to add regular exercise into your life!

Some people will swear by not eating back their calories and that may work in the short-term but an engine needs fuel to run. If you are only adding enough fuel for regular daily activities, how long do you expect to be able to have the energy to be athletic without giving your body a bit of extra fuel?

Again, if you have a base goal of 1600 cals and you burn 300 through exercise, this may never become a major concern for you (as your NET calories always end up over 1200 anyways) but if your base goal is lower and/or you have higher burns, you really DO need to consider what are your objectives? Just to lose weight regardless of its fat/muslce composition? If you want to lose weight over the long-term AND have a healthy and strong body, you need to fuel your body like an athlete and that means taking post-workout refueling into consideration.

I dont ALWAYS eat ALL of my exercise calories back, but when i end up with a NET under 1200 several times a week for a few weeks in a row, i notice a lack of energy which keeps me from optimal performance and a plateau of my weight. Speaking personally, i dont do all this exercise to burn off my muscle for energy! I want the fat gone, not the muscle! :drinker:

I have never eaten my exercise calories and lost weight every week, I know if I need to I can but it doesn't work for me to eat them, think you have to do what's best for you ;-)

Losing muscle is not good for anyone. If you goal is set for 0.5 lb/week lose then it would be okay not to eat them as you caloric deficit would only be 250 cals, but for those that are set at 1.5 to 2 lbs/week should eat most of them to avoid burning muscle as fuel, instead of fat, which is really what you want to lose.

Question (by the way I completely agree with you) does this theorem apply if you are just starting out on your weight loss journey? Does it matter as much when your metabolism is already super slow? I guess the question is, are you burning more fat or muscle or mere water weight at the beginning of your journey vs. later on? Is it okay not to eat all of your exercise calories until you have fully realized how to eat properly, get the right nutrition, and exercise properly? Thank you for any input you have