Does anyone eat their exercise calories while losing?
Options
Replies
-
middlehaitch wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I'm on an MFP program of 1500 calories per day. I also take a spinning class on Mondays, do 45 minutes on an elliptical every Friday morning and either power walk 2-3 miles or cycle > 15 miles on 3 other days of the week.
I try to avoid eating my exercise calories and still keep my intake between 1200 and 1500 per day but, when I finish off each day, I seem to get yelled at a lot by MFP. It keeps claiming I should be consuming at least 1200/day even though I'm normally exceeding that. Why am I getting that feedback?
Because 1,500 is the minimum recommended for a man (which it seems like you may be, based on your name and your profile pic). You're eating below that and, additionally, driving your net even lower by not eating back the calories you burn through activity. MFP is claiming you should be eating more because -- according to the facts you gave here -- you really should be eating more.
NET calories? I'd have to eat around 2000 calories. Too much!
2000 cals too much for what?
Making sure you are getting enough nutrients?
Making sure your lbm, organs, muscles, and bones are well supported?
Making sure your everyday activity doesn't drop?
Making sure you are performing at your best in your chosen exercise?
Making sure you don't have brain fog and your performance at work isn't suffering and causing stress.
Most of these things are not immediately apparent. They sneak up slowly and take a lot to recover from.
If you can't eat 2000 at least eat 1800 min when you exercise, 1500 when you don't.
Cheers, h.
I just don't see how a fat guy like me is going to run out of fuel any time soon.
My understanding is your body can only utilize so much stored body fat at a time. That's why those who under-eat tend to lose muscle mass and notice decreased hair and nail growth, more skin problems, brain fog etc. That's why you can't just not eat for a week and lose 5 lbs - your body starts eating not just your fat stores but muscle as well and starts neglecting certain processes to make sure it can keep your heart beating, your lungs breathing, and your brain working a little.8 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
See post above from @middlehaitch. The adverse effects of long term eating below the recommended minimum often do not have appreciable outward signs, and may take quite a while to become a factor.
Look, I get it. You pride yourself on your fortitude and resolve that you eat below the recommended amount because you believe yourself to be an outlier and that's just what you have to do in order to be successful. That doesn't make it ok to continually defend eating at an extreme deficit and below minimum thresholds. .
Huh?? "Pride myself on my "fortitude"? I don't even know where that is coming from LOL.
My point is, there ARE people, that do eat less that what MFP suggests, and they are quite healthy and fit. I am NOT defending "extreme deficits" at ALL. I AM saying that what others may assume is an extreme deficit, is NOT.WinoGelato wrote: »You want to continue eating sub 1200 because you've done long term damage to your metabolism, it's fine, you seem content with this. That doesn't mean that I and others are going to stop trying to help other people from making those same mistakes and getting themselves into the same position...
I don't know what @mhwhitt74 stats or goals are, so I have no way of knowing if losing 2.5 lbs/week is healthy for him or her, but I would be willing to bet money that it's not necessary or goal appropriate. And the attitude of "why eat back exercise calories and destroy all that hard work" just isn't the right mindset for long term success. This is a marathon, not a sprint. Exercise isn't punishment, and eating to an appropriate calorie level to fuel activity and keep a modest calorie deficit doesn't "undo" your hard work. It supports the hard work. It propagates it.
As I have said before, I've certainly never eaten in a manner to "damage" anything. My appetite is far too healthy, and I've never even been close to what would be considered thin. I am the proverbial "healthy as a horse" LOL. THAT is my "position". Always have been, knock on wood.
As far as the OP, I don't know the stats either, but you seem to make assumptions that every single person has a body that works identically to how yours does. My position is simply that there are lots of variances out there.
1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »It is the way this tool is designed. Your exercise isn't accounted for in your activity level...it would make sense that it should be accounted for in some way. Also, why does everyone seem to think MFP is trying to trick them...makes no sense.
Have you seen men think exercise shouldn't count? I've only noticed women, and so I suspect something cultural specific to women.
You could be on to something there. Could it be because men tend to be motivated by physical competition and women more by appearance?0 -
I can't find the reference but I was reading that in the case of people who have never tried to lose weight before and haven't done any research that in general, men will start exercising but don't change their diet and that women will tend to restrict their diet but not start exercise...another cultural thing I guess.1
-
I eat back most, but not all, of my calories. I find I am way too hungry otherwise. If I want a bigger dinner, I go for a long brisk walk for a top up. (I know this makes no sense as I'm using more energy).
If I stay under my added exercise calories, I lose. I'm set to sedentary and have a Fitbit One. I don't log other exercise other than steps.2 -
I often eat them. I like food. I actually find MFP *under* estimates while for other people they say over but I lose quickly1
-
Definitely true. I've noticed this for myself, as a woman whose first proper attempt at losing weight started with exercise alone. didn't do any particular research the first couple of weeks, I just thought it seemed most sensible to leave my food the same and move more. I am a definite outlier. Yay me?charlieandcarol wrote: »I can't find the reference but I was reading that in the case of people who have never tried to lose weight before and haven't done any research that in general, men will start exercising but don't change their diet and that women will tend to restrict their diet but not start exercise...another cultural thing I guess.
However, I've spent a lot of time vaguely pondering why I don't gravitate towards the same techniques as other women over the last couple of years, and I think I have identified the crucial differences.
I became overweight the same way as many (most?) other adult overweight women: too big portions, didn't move enough.
However, first off, my background was slightly different, because as a highly impressionable, ambitious teenager, I was very into a sport that needs a good amount of core strength and endurance. I used to go to training four days a week, surrounded by committed club members, and had positive role models (people of all shapes and sizes trying to be healthy and do better than they had last week) out the wazoo. As a teenager, girls I knew from school were obsessing over being slim and attractive, but after school, I was immersing myself in an atmosphere where everyone was trying to improve their performance. Becoming slim might be a side-effect, but the emphasis was on doing not being.
Statistically, this is not so usual. Women and girls tend to participate in sport far less than men and boys.
As a direct result of my love of the sport, I developed an interest in life sciences and how the body worked. Mainly, if I'm honest, because I kept injuring myself at home through ineffective warm-ups.
I ended up pursuing biology at the UK equivalent of high school beyond the compulsory, basic level, and learnt about macromolecules, vitamins, essential minerals and their functions within the body in an academic context. (Ever since, my reflexive reaction to someone haranguing me about the importance of "lo-fat" anything is to quiz them about fat-soluble vitamins and the role of phospholipids in the formation of cell membranes. Oddly, they never seem to know. Just seems to be "fat makes you fat".)
Both of those put together (in combination with ethical veganism*) means that adult me has far, far, far fewer issues of guilt or shame around food than most women I know. I enjoy food very much, but I also really do see food as fuel, and I think that I am entitled to eat! So when I realised I'd become overweight, I didn't feel obliged to punish myself for having eaten more than I needed in the past by starving myself now.
*I don't divide food into "bad" and "good" based on its calorie content, and I think that helps. If I eat half a packet of Oreos, I will not feel like a bad person at the end. I will just think, "bah, that wasn't the best way to spend my calories" and I certainly won't feel so ashamed that I try to drown the feeling by eating another two packets.4 -
I have always eaten mine. When I started I left some and lost a little faster so I started eating them because food. A large part of why I exercise is so I can eat more. Particularly now, I am not far from initial goal and am otherwise pretty sedentary. If I didn't exercise and eat my calories I'd be on a pitifully small amount of food and I like to eat. I also like to not have too much adaptive thermogenesis going on (natural down regulation of metabolism when eating in a deficit) so take regular diet breaks in order to re-upregulate and restore hormones to normal.
I have a Garmin which I use with a chest strap and even for things HRMs are not supposed to be accurate for, for me, it is. It's not so good on the steps, I walked a good 5k the other day and got 100 calories for my efforts but I'm not so worried about that, it's just interesting in the algorithms and syncing, it's not a regular enough thing for me to worry about.
But the attitude of "I'm eating the bare minimum and running/cycling 15 miles every other day without eating those back, yay me!" attitude is baffling. That's only going to end in a bad time as there will be absolutely no fuel for normal bodily functions, stored body fat simply isn't enough.9 -
I always ate most of mine back and it didn't hinder weight loss. As far as I'm concerned I need them to fuel my body - it works more efficiently when I feed it enough
0 -
I usually eat them back but not just for the sake of it. I see how I feel after a workout and eat them back if I'm feeling fatigued. I just use my common sense - if I've walked a lot that day and done an intense workout and am feeling quite fatigued then I'll eat back the calories. If I feel that MFP has overestimated then I'll just eat back what I feel like I burned. I'd just be setting myself up to fail if I increased my activity but denied myself the extra calories. I've personally always done it and lost weight.1
-
kshama2001 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »It is the way this tool is designed. Your exercise isn't accounted for in your activity level...it would make sense that it should be accounted for in some way. Also, why does everyone seem to think MFP is trying to trick them...makes no sense.
Have you seen men think exercise shouldn't count? I've only noticed women, and so I suspect something cultural specific to women.
MFP must be created by a man. No wonder we don't trust it:-)
3 -
middlehaitch wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I'm on an MFP program of 1500 calories per day. I also take a spinning class on Mondays, do 45 minutes on an elliptical every Friday morning and either power walk 2-3 miles or cycle > 15 miles on 3 other days of the week.
I try to avoid eating my exercise calories and still keep my intake between 1200 and 1500 per day but, when I finish off each day, I seem to get yelled at a lot by MFP. It keeps claiming I should be consuming at least 1200/day even though I'm normally exceeding that. Why am I getting that feedback?
Because 1,500 is the minimum recommended for a man (which it seems like you may be, based on your name and your profile pic). You're eating below that and, additionally, driving your net even lower by not eating back the calories you burn through activity. MFP is claiming you should be eating more because -- according to the facts you gave here -- you really should be eating more.
NET calories? I'd have to eat around 2000 calories. Too much!
2000 cals too much for what?
Making sure you are getting enough nutrients?
Making sure your lbm, organs, muscles, and bones are well supported?
Making sure your everyday activity doesn't drop?
Making sure you are performing at your best in your chosen exercise?
Making sure you don't have brain fog and your performance at work isn't suffering and causing stress.
Most of these things are not immediately apparent. They sneak up slowly and take a lot to recover from.
If you can't eat 2000 at least eat 1800 min when you exercise, 1500 when you don't.
Cheers, h.
I just don't see how a fat guy like me is going to run out of fuel any time soon.
My understanding is your body can only utilize so much stored body fat at a time. That's why those who under-eat tend to lose muscle mass and notice decreased hair and nail growth, more skin problems, brain fog etc. That's why you can't just not eat for a week and lose 5 lbs - your body starts eating not just your fat stores but muscle as well and starts neglecting certain processes to make sure it can keep your heart beating, your lungs breathing, and your brain working a little.
I have 3 weeks to go in the office weight loss contest. I'm 3 lbs. from my goal after losing 10 and they won't seem to go away. There's both money and pride on the line so I've reached the "desperate times" phase. I'll back off when the cash is in my pocket.0 -
I eat my exercise calories back (yes I am female). I have lost 35 pounds so far.
I exercise a LOT. I am a runner so sometimes my calorie intake goes well over 2000 a day. I am still shedding pounds.
I find it much more sustainable to eat those calories back in the long term. No binges 6 -
middlehaitch wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I'm on an MFP program of 1500 calories per day. I also take a spinning class on Mondays, do 45 minutes on an elliptical every Friday morning and either power walk 2-3 miles or cycle > 15 miles on 3 other days of the week.
I try to avoid eating my exercise calories and still keep my intake between 1200 and 1500 per day but, when I finish off each day, I seem to get yelled at a lot by MFP. It keeps claiming I should be consuming at least 1200/day even though I'm normally exceeding that. Why am I getting that feedback?
Because 1,500 is the minimum recommended for a man (which it seems like you may be, based on your name and your profile pic). You're eating below that and, additionally, driving your net even lower by not eating back the calories you burn through activity. MFP is claiming you should be eating more because -- according to the facts you gave here -- you really should be eating more.
NET calories? I'd have to eat around 2000 calories. Too much!
2000 cals too much for what?
Making sure you are getting enough nutrients?
Making sure your lbm, organs, muscles, and bones are well supported?
Making sure your everyday activity doesn't drop?
Making sure you are performing at your best in your chosen exercise?
Making sure you don't have brain fog and your performance at work isn't suffering and causing stress.
Most of these things are not immediately apparent. They sneak up slowly and take a lot to recover from.
If you can't eat 2000 at least eat 1800 min when you exercise, 1500 when you don't.
Cheers, h.
I just don't see how a fat guy like me is going to run out of fuel any time soon.
My understanding is your body can only utilize so much stored body fat at a time. That's why those who under-eat tend to lose muscle mass and notice decreased hair and nail growth, more skin problems, brain fog etc. That's why you can't just not eat for a week and lose 5 lbs - your body starts eating not just your fat stores but muscle as well and starts neglecting certain processes to make sure it can keep your heart beating, your lungs breathing, and your brain working a little.
I have 3 weeks to go in the office weight loss contest. I'm 3 lbs. from my goal after losing 10 and they won't seem to go away. There's both money and pride on the line so I've reached the "desperate times" phase. I'll back off when the cash is in my pocket.
Great reason to risk your health. The number of office weight loss competitions is alarming to say the least.4 -
No, but I account for my lightly active life in my tdee and set my own macros and then after a good month of data I'll use my observed tdee to determine if adjustments need to be made.1
-
Yes! Otherwise I end up binging because I'll be SO hungry after a few days. Being in a 500 calorie deficit, I also sometimes go over my calories, just staying below 500 (typically only 100-200 over) and I still lose. There's some days I'm just not as hungry and I'm under by 200-300 so it evens out. I use a Fitbit Charge 2. When I didn't use a tracker, I didn't eat back all of my calories, but I ate some. I've never had a problem losing weight this way, and it's been sustainable for me - I was able to maintain for a year and a half without counting calories, so I guess I learned some good habits doing it that way!0
-
I usually dip into mine a little, by a little I mean no more than 100 calories a day. I use my apple watch to log my calories and they only log the active calories burned, which is a lower number than the total number of calories burned during the entire workout. I think whether or not you should eat them also depends on how many calories your are burning. This works for me, but I would suggest you try and see what gives you the results you are seeking.0
-
janejellyroll wrote: »I'm on an MFP program of 1500 calories per day. I also take a spinning class on Mondays, do 45 minutes on an elliptical every Friday morning and either power walk 2-3 miles or cycle > 15 miles on 3 other days of the week.
I try to avoid eating my exercise calories and still keep my intake between 1200 and 1500 per day but, when I finish off each day, I seem to get yelled at a lot by MFP. It keeps claiming I should be consuming at least 1200/day even though I'm normally exceeding that. Why am I getting that feedback?
Because 1,500 is the minimum recommended for a man (which it seems like you may be, based on your name and your profile pic). You're eating below that and, additionally, driving your net even lower by not eating back the calories you burn through activity. MFP is claiming you should be eating more because -- according to the facts you gave here -- you really should be eating more.
NET calories? I'd have to eat around 2000 calories. Too much!
For an active man? Certainly not. I'm a small (108 pound) woman and I maintain my weight on about 1,900 calories a day. Assuming you entered your data correctly, why would you assume that MFP is giving you incorrect numbers?4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 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
- 978 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions