Exercise calories controversy ???

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 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

I dont eat mine and my trainer said I was fine,my doctor said im fine.Every one I talked to said im fine except people on here.I'll just stick to doing things the way I do them.It works for me.

I keep think about these exercise calories and how you are suppose to eat them. I find it very controversial because I see some people that swear by it yet I see many people that constantly lose weight from not eating them. I know many people that have lost weight by eating right and walking/exercising while not having a clue about eating calories back. Trust me, I would want nothing more than to be able to eat more calories but everyone I ask such as professionals have never heard of this. SO now, I am more confused than ever. So far I have read the articles on MFP but other than that, what are other resources non-MFP that can back up this information?

That is because professionals don't use the math the way MFP does. MFP tells you you need 1300 calories to lose 2 lbs/week (which is a 1000 cal/day deficit) To keep your deficit at 2 lb goal (1000) you must eat the exercise calories or your deficit will be greater than a 1000 calories. MFP sets you up to lose without exercise.

A professional may tell you to eat 1600 and exercise 30 min/day So the 1600 calories would give you a deficit on the day of 700, using the above numbers, the half hour of exercise they tell you to do burned say 300 calories, now your deficit is 1000 (700+300) whereas MFP says to eat 1300 and you burn 300 now you get to eat 1600 (1300+300). This gets you to the same place as very few professionals will tell you to eat as little as MFP does.

So eating the recommended by professional of 1600 would yield the same results MFP does by telling you to eat 1300. As the professional already would have added an amount for exercise in the 1600 whereas MFP adds the cals to get you to 1600ish, after you actually do the exercise. The professional assumes you will do the recommended exercise whereas MFP will allow you to lose the same amount of weight whether you exercise or not.

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: