About eating back your calories when you're not hungry(guide
Options
registers
Posts: 782 Member
Okay, to lose weight, you have to burn more calories than you put in your mouth. So if you put food in your mouth, you are consuming more calories. That is ABSOLUTELY fine if YOU'RE HUNGRY. You're not supposed to stress your body too much.
If you're NOT hungry, you shouldn't do it. Because by putting things in your mouth you're increasing your caloric intake.
If you burn 2000 calories a day, this is how many calories you have to eat to maintain your weight. If you eat above this limit you will gain weight. 2000 + 500 = 2500, this is addition. We don't want this if we're trying to lose weight I am going to talk about a thing called subtraction, to lose weight you have to subtract...
2000 - 500 = 1500, this is a called a caloric deficit. This will result in losing weight. Here is a mind boggling concept, It will shatter the laws of physics and math. The MORE SUBTRACTION YOU USE THE MORE WEIGHT YOU WILL LOSE. I am still shaking by the breakthrough in my math skills.
For example, if you eat 250 calories assuming you're at 1500 calories of food already... this will result in 1500 + 250 = 1750
These results are okay, not bad. But if you don't put that food in your mouth this math law called "the identity property of zero" takes place. This law states that "any number added to zero results in zero" for example x + 0 = x. x is 1500 calories so
1500 + 0 = 1500.......... WOW that's just amazing. So does this mean if we don't eat we will stay at the total caloric limit we consumed? YES, ABSOLUTELY!.This means the greater the caloric deficit the greater the weight loss. This genius breakthrough took a lot of complex equations to figure out, due to my daily intake of omega-3 fish oil supplements, I was able to figure it out.
Excuse: (noun) A reason or explanation put forward to defend or justify a fault or offense.
(Verb) Attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify.
Excuses are used to over eat, this means people find reasons to over eat. Over eating means when you eat beyond the point when you are satisfied with your food.
Does this mean when you eat more beyond the point you're full you're creating a a lower caloric deficit? YES, remember the law of addition 1500 + 250 = 1750. It's better if you used "the identity property of zero" 1500 + 0 = 1500 (your caloric deficit is bigger) The bigger the deficit the greater the weight loss.
In all seriousness, I seen people stuffing their face trying to meet their "caloric requirements" In all honesty, if you're hungry eat your calories, that's fine, nothing wrong there. If you're already satisfied and want to eat more to meet your caloric requirement you're over eating. If you want to justify it with "meeting my caloric needs" go ahead. I don't care.
Weight loss should be a gradual process. Don't stress yourself with too little calories. The purpose for "eating back your calories" is for people who feel stressed out by being at a caloric limit too low this is so you don't stress your system to much and you can lose weight at a gradual process which is highly recommended.
Just be safe people, don't over eat, or under eat.
If you're NOT hungry, you shouldn't do it. Because by putting things in your mouth you're increasing your caloric intake.
If you burn 2000 calories a day, this is how many calories you have to eat to maintain your weight. If you eat above this limit you will gain weight. 2000 + 500 = 2500, this is addition. We don't want this if we're trying to lose weight I am going to talk about a thing called subtraction, to lose weight you have to subtract...
2000 - 500 = 1500, this is a called a caloric deficit. This will result in losing weight. Here is a mind boggling concept, It will shatter the laws of physics and math. The MORE SUBTRACTION YOU USE THE MORE WEIGHT YOU WILL LOSE. I am still shaking by the breakthrough in my math skills.
For example, if you eat 250 calories assuming you're at 1500 calories of food already... this will result in 1500 + 250 = 1750
These results are okay, not bad. But if you don't put that food in your mouth this math law called "the identity property of zero" takes place. This law states that "any number added to zero results in zero" for example x + 0 = x. x is 1500 calories so
1500 + 0 = 1500.......... WOW that's just amazing. So does this mean if we don't eat we will stay at the total caloric limit we consumed? YES, ABSOLUTELY!.This means the greater the caloric deficit the greater the weight loss. This genius breakthrough took a lot of complex equations to figure out, due to my daily intake of omega-3 fish oil supplements, I was able to figure it out.
Excuse: (noun) A reason or explanation put forward to defend or justify a fault or offense.
(Verb) Attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify.
Excuses are used to over eat, this means people find reasons to over eat. Over eating means when you eat beyond the point when you are satisfied with your food.
Does this mean when you eat more beyond the point you're full you're creating a a lower caloric deficit? YES, remember the law of addition 1500 + 250 = 1750. It's better if you used "the identity property of zero" 1500 + 0 = 1500 (your caloric deficit is bigger) The bigger the deficit the greater the weight loss.
In all seriousness, I seen people stuffing their face trying to meet their "caloric requirements" In all honesty, if you're hungry eat your calories, that's fine, nothing wrong there. If you're already satisfied and want to eat more to meet your caloric requirement you're over eating. If you want to justify it with "meeting my caloric needs" go ahead. I don't care.
Weight loss should be a gradual process. Don't stress yourself with too little calories. The purpose for "eating back your calories" is for people who feel stressed out by being at a caloric limit too low this is so you don't stress your system to much and you can lose weight at a gradual process which is highly recommended.
Just be safe people, don't over eat, or under eat.
0
Replies
-
I just finished explaining this to someone before reading your post! Thanks for the confirmation:D0
-
those math skills. hmm its just so hard. can i use a calculator?0
-
No, no cheating.those math skills. hmm its just so hard. can i use a calculator?0 -
hmmm. I just thought it was common sense? if you are not hungry, you don't have to eat them back?
However, I can not understand how if you need 1500 and you burn 1500 you wouldn't be hungry...0 -
hmmm. I just thought it was common sense? if you are not hungry, you don't have to eat them back?
However, I can not understand how if you need 1500 and you burn 1500 you wouldn't be hungry...
back to the drawing board, you found a flaw in my math skills... haha oops typo.0 -
The thing about the calorie limits that MFP sets is that, depending on your activity level, it aims to put you at a deficit BEFORE any type of purposeful exercise. The reason this site does that is so you can lose weight just by eating less.
So the more you workout on purpose, the greater the calorie deficit will be. THAT is the reason that many people on here advise eating back the exercise calories, because running a negative is probably just as bad as going over.
But I also agree with the "if you're not hungry, don't eat" mentality. No reason to continue eating if you honestly don't feel like you need it. But eventually, the metabolism should catch up to the workouts, and you will likely need more calories to fuel your workouts.
Either way, do what works for you. I try to NET at least 1000 calories a day. Sometimes I make it, other times not, and I'm still losing pretty consistently. Just listen to your body!0 -
As usual, ascriminal forgot to preface another controversial post with 'IN MY OPINION'.The thing about the calorie limits that MFP sets is that, depending on your activity level, it aims to put you at a deficit BEFORE any type of purposeful exercise. The reason this site does that is so you can lose weight just by eating less.
So the more you workout on purpose, the greater the calorie deficit will be. THAT is the reason that many people on here advise eating back the exercise calories, because running a negative is probably just as bad as going over.
This is correct. Additionally, everyone's body has a different 'stall point' for weight loss. Some call them plateaus. Some people reach them quickly (I hit mine, every time I've ever lost weight...within a month), others more gradually...but the inevetible way to fix it is to EAT MORE FOOD.
To give you a very specific example. When I first began losing weight this time around, in early April...I was eating 2000-2400cal/day, and using another website for counting my calories. I exercised 3x a week (bodyweight strength training and minimal cardio) for 45-60 minutes. I ate back some of my exercise calories...not all, but the reason was because I didn't think that sites calculator for how many calories I burned was accurate.
I lost 20lbs in just about a month.
Then I came here. This site recommended a calorie limit of approximately 1550 (give or take 20cal). I followed it religiously. It wasn't difficult...I ate 4-6 slightly smaller meals (same food types) a day than I was before...still wasn't ever 'hungry'...and yet, my weight loss dropped to a dead stand still. Over the past month I've only lost less than 2lbs. Last week, I upped my caloric intake again by 500cal per day average, in a zig zag style intake pattern, and lost 1lb this week. I'm looking forward to losing even more over the next few days.
So you tell me? Should you eat when your not hungry? In my opinion, yes...you should...until you know precisely what your body is telling you...there is nothing to gain by not doing so. The reason half the people on this site are here is because they don't know how to listen to their body to begin with. Hunger is signaled to your brain by very specific things...however, our brains can learn to misinterpret those signals...as we can misinterpret our brain (when I don't get enough water...I don't get thirsty, I want SWEETS in the worst freaking way...go figure). Feed your body what it needs, not what you WANT, until you know enough to more accurately manipulate it for yourself.
When that day comes...you won't need threads like these to figure it out.
Cris0 -
You forgot 1 thing............................deficit of 3500 calories in a week = approx 1lb weight loss!!!0
-
So, my BMR is around 1300 calories a day. MFP suggests I eat 1200. 100 cals deficit a day. 1lb weight loss in 35 days. Have been following, eating all my calories back, 3 months later I weigh 5 lbs more that I did when i started MFP. so no, I will not increase my calorie intake, and I stopped eating my exercise calories. Its working so far.As usual, ascriminal forgot to preface another controversial post with 'IN MY OPINION'.The thing about the calorie limits that MFP sets is that, depending on your activity level, it aims to put you at a deficit BEFORE any type of purposeful exercise. The reason this site does that is so you can lose weight just by eating less.
So the more you workout on purpose, the greater the calorie deficit will be. THAT is the reason that many people on here advise eating back the exercise calories, because running a negative is probably just as bad as going over.
This is correct. Additionally, everyone's body has a different 'stall point' for weight loss. Some call them plateaus. Some people reach them quickly (I hit mine, every time I've ever lost weight...within a month), others more gradually...but the inevetible way to fix it is to EAT MORE FOOD.
So EAT MORE FOOD is not advice for everyone.0 -
excellent post!!!0
-
So, my BMR is around 1300 calories a day. MFP suggests I eat 1200. 100 cals deficit a day. 1lb weight loss in 35 days. Have been following, eating all my calories back, 3 months later I weigh 5 lbs more that I did when i started MFP. so no, I will not increase my calorie intake, and I stopped eating my exercise calories. Its working so far.As usual, ascriminal forgot to preface another controversial post with 'IN MY OPINION'.The thing about the calorie limits that MFP sets is that, depending on your activity level, it aims to put you at a deficit BEFORE any type of purposeful exercise. The reason this site does that is so you can lose weight just by eating less.
So the more you workout on purpose, the greater the calorie deficit will be. THAT is the reason that many people on here advise eating back the exercise calories, because running a negative is probably just as bad as going over.
This is correct. Additionally, everyone's body has a different 'stall point' for weight loss. Some call them plateaus. Some people reach them quickly (I hit mine, every time I've ever lost weight...within a month), others more gradually...but the inevetible way to fix it is to EAT MORE FOOD.
So EAT MORE FOOD is not advice for everyone.
Not always, no...but you're clearly intelligent/experienced enough to figure out what works for you. Many others do what I did...create an account, set it to 2lbs/wk loss, and wonder why they aren't losing weight.
How tall are you? I see you are close to your goal?? This all plays into these things. Additionally, what's your definition of 'eating all your calories back'? 100%? 60%? By what method are you determining how much you burn exercising? If you're using the site (or even many of the 'friendly' HRM's out there)...you could be overestimating by a large margin...which would certainly contribute.
So, the thing is...we've specified a safe way to go about this...and we've specified ascriminal's typically reckless, across the board, generalized for everyone way to go about it. The difference being...once you know what's going on well enough to determine what is or isn't working for you...you're probably well informed enough to safely disregard my statement. Until then...you're going to be far better off eating what you're body requires...hungry or not.
Cris0 -
Ghrelin is the "hunger" hormone.
Sheboss1673:Research is unclear as yet as to the exact cause of the insensitivity to these hormones, but the outcome is the same, essentially in many obese people, hormones are incorrectly interpreted. This means that for those of you (myself included in the past) who aren't considered to be at a "normal" or "healthy" weight (I.E. obese) may not be receiving the correct signals about when to eat, when not to eat, and how much to eat to satiate your hunger levels.
That means you should be relying on our higher brain function to figure out when to eat and when not to eat. Eventually, your body will correct the hormone insensitivity, but until that occurs, it's not accurate to say that your body knows when it needs energy.
So the rule to NOT eat when you're NOT hungry is NOT always 100% true.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/231636-the-eating-when-you-re-not-hungry-dilemma?hl=eating+when+not+hungry
I also tend to be annoyed when someone says that I'm using my exercise calories as an excuse to overeat. I'm one of the people that has spent years undereating (with splurges here and there that cause weight gain). I've spent a year learning to eat MORE and to fuel my body consistantly, instead of starving myself for a week then scarfing everything in sight on Friday night. I don't think the people on THIS site are here looking for excuses to overeat. I think they're mostly here to lose weight.
As this site has a built in deficit, eating your exercise calories is necessary in order to maintain that deficit and not increase it to unhealthy and unsustainable levels. It has nothing to do with excuses to overeat.0 -
So, my BMR is around 1300 calories a day. MFP suggests I eat 1200. 100 cals deficit a day. 1lb weight loss in 35 days. Have been following, eating all my calories back, 3 months later I weigh 5 lbs more that I did when i started MFP. so no, I will not increase my calorie intake, and I stopped eating my exercise calories. Its working so far.As usual, ascriminal forgot to preface another controversial post with 'IN MY OPINION'.The thing about the calorie limits that MFP sets is that, depending on your activity level, it aims to put you at a deficit BEFORE any type of purposeful exercise. The reason this site does that is so you can lose weight just by eating less.
So the more you workout on purpose, the greater the calorie deficit will be. THAT is the reason that many people on here advise eating back the exercise calories, because running a negative is probably just as bad as going over.
This is correct. Additionally, everyone's body has a different 'stall point' for weight loss. Some call them plateaus. Some people reach them quickly (I hit mine, every time I've ever lost weight...within a month), others more gradually...but the inevetible way to fix it is to EAT MORE FOOD.
So EAT MORE FOOD is not advice for everyone.
BMR is NOT what you burn on a daily basis. It is what you would burn if you did absolutely nothing, except lie in bed, asleep. In order to know what you burn, you must add your activity factor, because everything you do, including sitting up, burns calories over and above your BMR. The total burned during a day is called your TDEE or Maintenance Calories. To know what MFP calculates your MAINTENANCE calories to be, go to Home > Goals> and then check the right hand side for your "total daily activity" number. Your deficit is then deducted from THAT number to arrive at your daily calorie goal. In order to keep this deficit at 400 or 500 or 750 or whatever it is, you eat back your exercise calories.0 -
Conclusion from reading this thread:
Some people can have huge caloric deficits and lose weight fast.
Some people can have huge caloric deficits and NOT lose weight at all.
Some people can have minimal caloric deficits and lose weight fast.
So basically.
TRY WHAT YOU WANT TO TRY AND DO WHAT WORKS FOR YOU.
The OP even said at the end "So basically, dont over eat, and dont under eat"
This isn't even a debate. Just because YOU did not lose weight with a higher deficit, does not mean that NOBODY will.
People need to stop preaching0 -
A study at UNM concluded that that maximum rate of fat oxidation amounted to about 31 kcal (food calories) per pound of body fat. If you create a deficit larger than that, muscle is burned. Now muscle can also be broken down if your protein intake is too low, so there are other factors at play. Still the 31 kcal number helps determine the maximal calorie deficit that will result in fat loss.
Let me use an example woman who comes to MFP wanting to slim down. Let's call her Sue. Sue weighs 150 lbs and is 30% body fat. Not too bad, but she wants to rock a bikini on the beach. She comes here, sets her goal to 2 lbs of fat loss per week, and is given a calorie deficit of 1000 calories a day. 7000 calories a week equates to 2 lbs of fat. But Sue is not all that chubby to begin with. At 30% body fat, she has 45 lbs of fat. 45 lbs x 31 Calories = 1395. That is the maximum amount of energy her body can squeeze out of her fat reserves each day.
We're still doing fine until Sue adds a 500 calorie exercise deficit and doesn't eat back her calories. Now she is burning muscle as well as fat. Her weight goes down, but so does her metabolism due to lost muscle. As she trims further, the amount of energy she can generate from fat burning decreases because there is less fat to burn. If Sue lost 10 lbs of pure fat from her starting weight, she would be at 140 lbs, and 25% body fat. Her maximum deficit is now 35 lbs of fat x 31 Calories = 1085. This still seems large, but it is the absolute maximum deficit she should create between her food intake and her daily calories expended for everything she does, including basic metabolic processes, general activity, and exercise. She should reduce her calorie deficit to maintain her lean mass while losing fat.
I don't know if this figure is accurate for women, who have a higher essential body fat percentage than men, but it shows that in general people with more fat to lose can safely maintain a larger calorie deficit than those close to their goals, and that too large of a deficit is going to reduce lean mass. Naturally there are tons of other issues at play in addition to this formula.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/156156150 -
I don't even think I mentioned gherlin in this post.Ghrelin is the "hunger" hormone.
Most of us are here to lose weight. No one really argues about creating a caloric deficit. Does eating reduce your caloric deficit? yes, of course with a few minor exceptions such as negative calorie foods.Sheboss1673:
This means that for those of you (myself included in the past) who aren't considered to be at a "normal" or "healthy" weight (I.E. obese) may not be receiving the correct signals about when to eat, when not to eat, and how much to eat to satiate your hunger levels.
That means you should be relying on our higher brain function to figure out when to eat and when not to eat. Eventually, your body will correct the hormone insensitivity, but until that occurs, it's not accurate to say that your body knows when it needs energy.
Take note how bank says it, "MAY NOT be recieving the correct signals" in summary he's pretty much saying. "we dont know when to eat, or when to stop eating" Think of this from a logic perspective? If we don't know when to eat, we wouldn't eat. Does this ever happen? not really. A study was done on rats, their pancrease was removed(pancrease releases insulin). They would literally eat untill they died. Rats injected with insulin wouldn't eat at all and starved to death.
People know when they are full, but they continue to eat. Some people know they're hungry and don't eat. This is not a biochemical issue(well it is everything is biochemical issue in the body), but not in the terms of resistance to bio chemicals such as gherlin, CKK, or insulin. It's more of a dopamine response. We get "pleasure" from eating. I can't imagine someone over eating a food they really dislike. I can't see someone rejecting a food they really love, if it wasn't for a "concious decision" of not to eat it i.e. discipline. We still experience the desire to eat, and not eat.I also tend to be annoyed when someone says that I'm using my exercise calories as an excuse to overeat. I'm one of the people that has spent years undereating (with splurges here and there that cause weight gain). I've spent a year learning to eat MORE and to fuel my body consistantly, instead of starving myself for a week then scarfing everything in sight on Friday night. I don't think the people on THIS site are here looking for excuses to overeat. I think they're mostly here to lose weight.
As this site has a built in deficit, eating your exercise calories is necessary in order to maintain that deficit and not increase it to unhealthy and unsustainable levels. It has nothing to do with excuses to overeat.
I can see how that comment I made can irritate some people. My apologies for that. Notice how you said you wouldn't eat for a long time, then binge. You still ate, the issue isn't about eating. It's was about eating the approrpiate food at the appropriate time. A reduced calorie has been linked to longer life span. I don't see the point of offsetting that benefit.0 -
BMR is NOT what you burn on a daily basis. It is what you would burn if you did absolutely nothing, except lie in bed, asleep. In order to know what you burn, you must add your activity factor, because everything you do, including sitting up, burns calories over and above your BMR. The total burned during a day is called your TDEE or Maintenance Calories. To know what MFP calculates your MAINTENANCE calories to be, go to Home > Goals> and then check the right hand side for your "total daily activity" number. Your deficit is then deducted from THAT number to arrive at your daily calorie goal. In order to keep this deficit at 400 or 500 or 750 or whatever it is, you eat back your exercise calories.
You're talking about AMR(Active Metabolic Rate) + BMR(Basal Metabolic Rate = DER(Daily Energy Requirements). I used BMR because it's what people are most familiar with. Didn't want to explain the difference. I'd have to explain all 3.0 -
Conclusion from reading this thread:
Some people can have huge caloric deficits and lose weight fast.
Some people can have huge caloric deficits and NOT lose weight at all.
Some people can have minimal caloric deficits and lose weight fast.
So basically.
TRY WHAT YOU WANT TO TRY AND DO WHAT WORKS FOR YOU.
The OP even said at the end "So basically, dont over eat, and dont under eat"
This isn't even a debate. Just because YOU did not lose weight with a higher deficit, does not mean that NOBODY will.
People need to stop preaching
AMEN!0 -
But there's a huge difference between BMR and TDEE. You can't substitute one for the other :huh:0
-
A study at UNM concluded that that maximum rate of fat oxidation amounted to about 31 kcal (food calories) per pound of body fat. If you create a deficit larger than that, muscle is burned. Now muscle can also be broken down if your protein intake is too low, so there are other factors at play. Still the 31 kcal number helps determine the maximal calorie deficit that will result in fat loss.
Let me use an example woman who comes to MFP wanting to slim down. Let's call her Sue. Sue weighs 150 lbs and is 30% body fat. Not too bad, but she wants to rock a bikini on the beach. She comes here, sets her goal to 2 lbs of fat loss per week, and is given a calorie deficit of 1000 calories a day. 7000 calories a week equates to 2 lbs of fat. But Sue is not all that chubby to begin with. At 30% body fat, she has 45 lbs of fat. 45 lbs x 31 Calories = 1395. That is the maximum amount of energy her body can squeeze out of her fat reserves each day.
We're still doing fine until Sue adds a 500 calorie exercise deficit and doesn't eat back her calories. Now she is burning muscle as well as fat. Her weight goes down, but so does her metabolism due to lost muscle. As she trims further, the amount of energy she can generate from fat burning decreases because there is less fat to burn. If Sue lost 10 lbs of pure fat from her starting weight, she would be at 140 lbs, and 25% body fat. Her maximum deficit is now 35 lbs of fat x 31 Calories = 1085. This still seems large, but it is the absolute maximum deficit she should create between her food intake and her daily calories expended for everything she does, including basic metabolic processes, general activity, and exercise. She should reduce her calorie deficit to maintain her lean mass while losing fat.
I don't know if this figure is accurate for women, who have a higher essential body fat percentage than men, but it shows that in general people with more fat to lose can safely maintain a larger calorie deficit than those close to their goals, and that too large of a deficit is going to reduce lean mass. Naturally there are tons of other issues at play in addition to this formula.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615
I think ultimately you're saying, "if you don't eat enough calories you will lose muscle mass which will slow down your metabolism" I skimmed through it, really didn't read it thoroughly . I will when I come back to this topic. Correct me if I am wrong.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions