Don't add eat exercise calories
Replies
-
In many cases, I don't feel there is a need to eat back any exercise calories. But in some cases, there is. The key is to know when you actually need to. There is a BIG difference between spending 15 minutes doing a light effort on an elliptical machine that doesn't even cause you to break a sweat, or 3 sets of lifting 10 pound weights and 20 crunches, and thinking you need to eat more to compensate for that...
...and running many miles at a brisk pace, or cycling a long hilly course, or doing some other really intensive exercise for an extended period of time.
On days that I jog for 10 or 15 minutes and then do 8 interval sprints followed by a cool down...I typically don't eat back any exercise calories. However, if I do 3 hour hike with over 1,000 feet in elevation gain...or do a long slow run that is much more than normal for me, I WILL be hungrier and I will eat more. I think you need to learn when your body actually needs more fuel. Eat when it does, but skip the extras when it doesn't.
An extreme example of people sabotaging their weight loss efforts for the sake of being able to justify eating an extra cookie are the threads that I used to see here frequently asking how many calories they burn doing routine house cleaning and other things of that nature. These were real threads!!! I mean, even if you say you are sedentary, I believe that these calculators that estimate daily calories burned assume that you occasionally get out of bed. Trying to add extra food because you went to the effort of showering and dressing yourself is just ridiculous.
Also, I don't believe any of these calorie burn estimates are necessarily accurate...whether from a machine, a fit bit, or from mfp. So I always assume they are too high...I mentally deduct 1/3 automatically in the interest of being conservative...and even then I have no idea if the estimate is close.
Bottom line...listen to your body. If you don't eat back calories, and don't start to get hungrier or lose energy, then you are probably eating the right amount. If that changes, eat back some of it at least on your more active days. On the other hand, if a person isn't losing weight over a period of several weeks...they most likely do NOT need the extra food.
3 -
For me, I find that I have to eat back calories after strength training; my body kind of craves them, and especially something like a big bowl of oatmeal or something with rice. If it's light aerobics, like walking, I might eat back about half of those calories.
Generally, I listen to my body. I'm a low carber, and every now and then I feel like I have to have a higher carb day. And, interestingly, I often find I'll lose more or break a plateau when I eat back more of my exercise calories.
About the FitBit, I was surprised how accurate mine is. I use it to track my Curves workout; and, the calories burned, based on my heart rate and length of time of the workout, are pretty close to what MFP has for the calorie burn for Curves, if you look it up.0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...12 -
kshama2001 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
When someone uses MFP and doesn't lose weight (over time) when eating back exercise calories, that means they are either underestimating Calories In and/or overestimating Calories Out.
MFP uses the NEAT method (Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis), and as such this system is designed for exercise calories to be eaten back. However, many consider the burns given by MFP to be inflated and only eat a percentage, such as 50%, back.
My FitBit One is far less generous with calories than the MFP database and I comfortably eat 100% of the calories I earn from it back.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/818082/exercise-calories-again-wtf/p1
I am finding MFP gives me less calories than my Charge HR...hmm interesting.1 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
A ton, no, but if your daily calories are 1200, 300 is 25% of that.
25% is a big deal.
14 -
NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
I think it depends on the person. If someone is running several miles, they need to eat their exercise calories. Conversely, some people come to these threads asking why they aren't losing weight, and it comes out that they're eating 400 calories over their goal because of an "intense" 30 minute yoga routine. If your exercise calories are an overestimate, don't eat them. If you're burning a significant number of calories with your exercise, you need to eat them. That's the universal rule.
Exactly. Pretty much a sure bet that most people that have not been successfully managing/tracking calories and exercise, for a long time, are way off on their estimates of both.0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
I don't think anyone is arguing to eat a "ton" of fuel. The question is whether or not it's okay to eat back the estimated burn of a 3 mile run. My daily goal to maintain is 1,460. If I run 3 miles, I'm going to eat at least some of that back and that's okay.4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
A ton, no, but if your daily calories are 1200, 300 is 25% of that.
25% is a big deal.
None the less, I don't find it necessary to add 300 calories to my intake to "make up" for a 3 mile run. Far from the doom and gloom predicted by some of the naysayers here, it hasn't killed my energy levels, my nails are not brittle, my hair is not falling out, my pace has increased (I just PR'd three different distances in the last six weeks in races), and I am not starving to death.
The sky will not fall down if I don't "eat back" those calories.2 -
kshama2001 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
When someone uses MFP and doesn't lose weight (over time) when eating back exercise calories, that means they are either underestimating Calories In and/or overestimating Calories Out.
MFP uses the NEAT method (Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis), and as such this system is designed for exercise calories to be eaten back. However, many consider the burns given by MFP to be inflated and only eat a percentage, such as 50%, back.
My FitBit One is far less generous with calories than the MFP database and I comfortably eat 100% of the calories I earn from it back.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/818082/exercise-calories-again-wtf/p1
I am finding MFP gives me less calories than my Charge HR...hmm interesting.
Same here. 45 min of hiit at peak intensity has me at 373 calories, 2781 steps out of 7385 so far. MFP gave me 385 for the whole day. So in the process of daily living and work my 145 lb self only burned 12 calories? Hmmm. Just noticed this, but I would rather have a lowball estimate.0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
One size does not fit all. Calling someone else's intense workout insignificant is rude. You are not them, and they are not you.32 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
Nobody is arguing to eat a "ton"...but you could certainly eat another XXX calories provided the estimate is relatively accurate and you would still lose weight at the rate that you told MFP you wanted to...which is the whole point of the question.10 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
Nobody is arguing to eat a "ton"...but you could certainly eat another XXX calories provided the estimate is relatively accurate and you would still lose weight at the rate that you told MFP you wanted to...which is the whole point of the question.
Could.
If I wanted to, and were hungry. Neither of those conditions apply, and the world has not ended.
0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
Nobody is arguing to eat a "ton"...but you could certainly eat another XXX calories provided the estimate is relatively accurate and you would still lose weight at the rate that you told MFP you wanted to...which is the whole point of the question.
Could.
If I wanted to, and were hungry. Neither of those conditions apply, and the world has not ended.
You know that things can take time to develop right? Most overtraining injuries and issues aren't actually a matter of overtraining but rather an issue of underfeeding activity and they happen over time. Hopefully you won't have any issues, but there are plenty of people who do and have had issues.
Personally, I train for my fitness and performance and improved fitness and performance and feeding properly is a part of that...lean, healthy, and fit people eat and train...I know a ton of them.5 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
Nobody disagrees with you!! Your non-strawman opponent would say you should eat approximately 2/3 your body-weight-in-pounds as calories, times 3, to replenish the energy needs imposed by a 3 mile run.1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
Nobody is arguing to eat a "ton"...but you could certainly eat another XXX calories provided the estimate is relatively accurate and you would still lose weight at the rate that you told MFP you wanted to...which is the whole point of the question.
Could.
If I wanted to, and were hungry. Neither of those conditions apply, and the world has not ended.
You know that things can take time to develop right? Most overtraining injuries and issues aren't actually a matter of overtraining but rather an issue of underfeeding activity and they happen over time. Hopefully you won't have any issues, but there are plenty of people who do and have had issues.
Personally, I train for my fitness and performance and improved fitness and performance and feeding properly is a part of that...lean, healthy, and fit people eat and train...I know a ton of them.
So if I just wait a few more years?0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
Nobody is arguing to eat a "ton"...but you could certainly eat another XXX calories provided the estimate is relatively accurate and you would still lose weight at the rate that you told MFP you wanted to...which is the whole point of the question.
Could.
If I wanted to, and were hungry. Neither of those conditions apply, and the world has not ended.
You know that things can take time to develop right? Most overtraining injuries and issues aren't actually a matter of overtraining but rather an issue of underfeeding activity and they happen over time. Hopefully you won't have any issues, but there are plenty of people who do and have had issues.
Personally, I train for my fitness and performance and improved fitness and performance and feeding properly is a part of that...lean, healthy, and fit people eat and train...I know a ton of them.
So if I just wait a few more years?
Yeah. Were you not planning on making it that long or something?2 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
Nobody is arguing to eat a "ton"...but you could certainly eat another XXX calories provided the estimate is relatively accurate and you would still lose weight at the rate that you told MFP you wanted to...which is the whole point of the question.
Could.
If I wanted to, and were hungry. Neither of those conditions apply, and the world has not ended.
You know that things can take time to develop right? Most overtraining injuries and issues aren't actually a matter of overtraining but rather an issue of underfeeding activity and they happen over time. Hopefully you won't have any issues, but there are plenty of people who do and have had issues.
Personally, I train for my fitness and performance and improved fitness and performance and feeding properly is a part of that...lean, healthy, and fit people eat and train...I know a ton of them.
So if I just wait a few more years?
Anything that hasn't happened by now is unpossible.2 -
Geocitiesuser wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
Nobody is arguing to eat a "ton"...but you could certainly eat another XXX calories provided the estimate is relatively accurate and you would still lose weight at the rate that you told MFP you wanted to...which is the whole point of the question.
Could.
If I wanted to, and were hungry. Neither of those conditions apply, and the world has not ended.
You know that things can take time to develop right? Most overtraining injuries and issues aren't actually a matter of overtraining but rather an issue of underfeeding activity and they happen over time. Hopefully you won't have any issues, but there are plenty of people who do and have had issues.
Personally, I train for my fitness and performance and improved fitness and performance and feeding properly is a part of that...lean, healthy, and fit people eat and train...I know a ton of them.
So if I just wait a few more years?
Yeah. Were you not planning on making it that long or something?
I find it hilarious that I point out none of the doom and gloom has happened to me, and I'm told basically that it will "eventually".
How long is eventually? It's not as if my lifestyle is new to me. It started with "takes more than a few weeks." Then it was months. Now we're into years. Do we go to decades next? It's exactly the same as being told that you'll just magically start gaining weight when you're "older". You want me to check back when I'm 90?
2 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
Nobody is arguing to eat a "ton"...but you could certainly eat another XXX calories provided the estimate is relatively accurate and you would still lose weight at the rate that you told MFP you wanted to...which is the whole point of the question.
Could.
If I wanted to, and were hungry. Neither of those conditions apply, and the world has not ended.
You know that things can take time to develop right? Most overtraining injuries and issues aren't actually a matter of overtraining but rather an issue of underfeeding activity and they happen over time. Hopefully you won't have any issues, but there are plenty of people who do and have had issues.
Personally, I train for my fitness and performance and improved fitness and performance and feeding properly is a part of that...lean, healthy, and fit people eat and train...I know a ton of them.
So if I just wait a few more years?
Yeah. Were you not planning on making it that long or something?
I find it hilarious that I point out none of the doom and gloom has happened to me, and I'm told basically that it will "eventually".
How long is eventually? It's not as if my lifestyle is new to me. It started with "takes more than a few weeks." Then it was months. Now we're into years. Do we go to decades next? It's exactly the same as being told that you'll just magically start gaining weight when you're "older". You want me to check back when I'm 90?
unless you are a very small woman who runs her 3miles at a very slow pace what you are describing doesn't seem plausible to me either...
but that being said you found what works for you great...have at but don't assume everyone is like you and what you do is "right".
Not eating back exercise calories is not good advice unless you are so under estimating your intake that you gain when you do *coughs* then that would be the only reason not to.
4 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
Nobody is arguing to eat a "ton"...but you could certainly eat another XXX calories provided the estimate is relatively accurate and you would still lose weight at the rate that you told MFP you wanted to...which is the whole point of the question.
Could.
If I wanted to, and were hungry. Neither of those conditions apply, and the world has not ended.
You know that things can take time to develop right? Most overtraining injuries and issues aren't actually a matter of overtraining but rather an issue of underfeeding activity and they happen over time. Hopefully you won't have any issues, but there are plenty of people who do and have had issues.
Personally, I train for my fitness and performance and improved fitness and performance and feeding properly is a part of that...lean, healthy, and fit people eat and train...I know a ton of them.
So if I just wait a few more years?
Yeah. Were you not planning on making it that long or something?
I find it hilarious that I point out none of the doom and gloom has happened to me, and I'm told basically that it will "eventually".
How long is eventually? It's not as if my lifestyle is new to me. It started with "takes more than a few weeks." Then it was months. Now we're into years. Do we go to decades next? It's exactly the same as being told that you'll just magically start gaining weight when you're "older". You want me to check back when I'm 90?
unless you are a very small woman who runs her 3miles at a very slow pace what you are describing doesn't seem plausible to me either...
but that being said you found what works for you great...have at but don't assume everyone is like you and what you do is "right".
Not eating back exercise calories is not good advice unless you are so under estimating your intake that you gain when you do *coughs* then that would be the only reason not to.
Yeah, see there's no underestimating because I don't estimate. I use a scale, weigh in grams, USDA database check my entries.
I am not at all saying that everyone is like me and should do what I do. In fact, I'm saying the opposite. That people should not do as someone else does simply because that person has told them it's the One Right Way, which is what the "you must eat back calories" camp says. My take on it is you can if that works for you, but it's not mandatory.2 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
Nobody is arguing to eat a "ton"...but you could certainly eat another XXX calories provided the estimate is relatively accurate and you would still lose weight at the rate that you told MFP you wanted to...which is the whole point of the question.
Could.
If I wanted to, and were hungry. Neither of those conditions apply, and the world has not ended.
You know that things can take time to develop right? Most overtraining injuries and issues aren't actually a matter of overtraining but rather an issue of underfeeding activity and they happen over time. Hopefully you won't have any issues, but there are plenty of people who do and have had issues.
Personally, I train for my fitness and performance and improved fitness and performance and feeding properly is a part of that...lean, healthy, and fit people eat and train...I know a ton of them.
So if I just wait a few more years?
Yeah. Were you not planning on making it that long or something?
I find it hilarious that I point out none of the doom and gloom has happened to me, and I'm told basically that it will "eventually".
How long is eventually? It's not as if my lifestyle is new to me. It started with "takes more than a few weeks." Then it was months. Now we're into years. Do we go to decades next? It's exactly the same as being told that you'll just magically start gaining weight when you're "older". You want me to check back when I'm 90?
It might, it might not. No one is invincible. For purposes of discussion with strangers on forums here, especially those seeking advice, it is highly advisable to suggest the most health-conscious paths. For some of us we are concerned about our health 1, 5, and 30 years from now. It's a quality of life thing. I didn't follow the whole thread, so I'm not so sure why you've very combative about it. You seem to be claiming that other people's workouts don't qualify as intense enough, and suggesting that very low calories vs activity level has no long term consequence based on anecdotal evidence. So... shrug?5 -
Geocitiesuser wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
Nobody is arguing to eat a "ton"...but you could certainly eat another XXX calories provided the estimate is relatively accurate and you would still lose weight at the rate that you told MFP you wanted to...which is the whole point of the question.
Could.
If I wanted to, and were hungry. Neither of those conditions apply, and the world has not ended.
You know that things can take time to develop right? Most overtraining injuries and issues aren't actually a matter of overtraining but rather an issue of underfeeding activity and they happen over time. Hopefully you won't have any issues, but there are plenty of people who do and have had issues.
Personally, I train for my fitness and performance and improved fitness and performance and feeding properly is a part of that...lean, healthy, and fit people eat and train...I know a ton of them.
So if I just wait a few more years?
Yeah. Were you not planning on making it that long or something?
I find it hilarious that I point out none of the doom and gloom has happened to me, and I'm told basically that it will "eventually".
How long is eventually? It's not as if my lifestyle is new to me. It started with "takes more than a few weeks." Then it was months. Now we're into years. Do we go to decades next? It's exactly the same as being told that you'll just magically start gaining weight when you're "older". You want me to check back when I'm 90?
It might, it might not. No one is invincible. For purposes of discussion with strangers on forums here, especially those seeking advice, it is highly advisable to suggest the most health-conscious paths. For some of us we are concerned about our health 1, 5, and 30 years from now. It's a quality of life thing. I didn't follow the whole thread, so I'm not so sure why you've very combative about it. You seem to be claiming that other people's workouts don't qualify as intense enough, and suggesting that very low calories vs activity level has no long term consequence based on anecdotal evidence. So... shrug?
Oh, well, in that case I have a great quality of life and expect that it should continue along just fine in the future as long as I continue to eat well and exercise regularly.
As far as anecdotal evidence, this entire forum is full of it. Many other posters immediately turn "this is what works for me" into "this is what you should do."
On the other hand, I will only say that my experiences have differed significantly from much of that advice, and that people should figure out what works for them with respect to exercise calories and not feel an obligation to use anyone else's method (whether mine or another poster).2 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »I find it hilarious that I point out none of the doom and gloom has happened to me, and I'm told basically that it will "eventually".
Am I confusing you for someone else, or is this exactly the opposite of your take in the "Do you think obese/overweight people should pay more for health insurance?" thread? A lot of people in there are saying "being obese isn't bad, I'm perfectly healthy" and others are explaining how risk and insurance, and present and future, work. I thought you were in the latter group. I could be mistaken, it's a very long thread.7 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
Nobody is arguing to eat a "ton"...but you could certainly eat another XXX calories provided the estimate is relatively accurate and you would still lose weight at the rate that you told MFP you wanted to...which is the whole point of the question.
Could.
If I wanted to, and were hungry. Neither of those conditions apply, and the world has not ended.
You know that things can take time to develop right? Most overtraining injuries and issues aren't actually a matter of overtraining but rather an issue of underfeeding activity and they happen over time. Hopefully you won't have any issues, but there are plenty of people who do and have had issues.
Personally, I train for my fitness and performance and improved fitness and performance and feeding properly is a part of that...lean, healthy, and fit people eat and train...I know a ton of them.
So if I just wait a few more years?
Yeah. Were you not planning on making it that long or something?
I find it hilarious that I point out none of the doom and gloom has happened to me, and I'm told basically that it will "eventually".
How long is eventually? It's not as if my lifestyle is new to me. It started with "takes more than a few weeks." Then it was months. Now we're into years. Do we go to decades next? It's exactly the same as being told that you'll just magically start gaining weight when you're "older". You want me to check back when I'm 90?
unless you are a very small woman who runs her 3miles at a very slow pace what you are describing doesn't seem plausible to me either...
but that being said you found what works for you great...have at but don't assume everyone is like you and what you do is "right".
Not eating back exercise calories is not good advice unless you are so under estimating your intake that you gain when you do *coughs* then that would be the only reason not to.
Yeah, see there's no underestimating because I don't estimate. I use a scale, weigh in grams, USDA database check my entries.
I am not at all saying that everyone is like me and should do what I do. In fact, I'm saying the opposite. That people should not do as someone else does simply because that person has told them it's the One Right Way, which is what the "you must eat back calories" camp says. My take on it is you can if that works for you, but it's not mandatory.
Here's where I have a problem with this - especially since those who start with any weight loss program usually believe more (i.e. a bigger deficit) is better. Using an extreme example (not really me) to make my point:
Let's say I enter "sedentary" for my activity level. MFP will spit back a calorie goal of 1500 to match my goal right? (In my case, however that level would actually be closer to 1lb per week because 1500 is the floor). But, let's say MFP didn't have a floor - if it didn't, it would recommend that I eat 1150 to meet my 2 lb / week goal. Now, since I believe "more is better" because I'm new at this, I go about my real day, which is decidedly NOT sedentary (I actually burn about 3100-3600 calories per day). If I do not eat back exercise calories, I cannot fuel my workouts with food alone. My body cannot fuel the rest of the deficit on fat alone. So it turns to other things, like muscle. And the fat that should be used for other necessary things, including brain function gets burned instead to fuel activity.
In your case, you may not be burning muscle, or having other issues because the deficit may not be that big, but for those folks who set their activity levels lower than what they actually are, not eating back exercise calories (in the effort to accelerate their weight loss because more is better right?) can be a huge deal.
9 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
Nobody is arguing to eat a "ton"...but you could certainly eat another XXX calories provided the estimate is relatively accurate and you would still lose weight at the rate that you told MFP you wanted to...which is the whole point of the question.
Could.
If I wanted to, and were hungry. Neither of those conditions apply, and the world has not ended.
You know that things can take time to develop right? Most overtraining injuries and issues aren't actually a matter of overtraining but rather an issue of underfeeding activity and they happen over time. Hopefully you won't have any issues, but there are plenty of people who do and have had issues.
Personally, I train for my fitness and performance and improved fitness and performance and feeding properly is a part of that...lean, healthy, and fit people eat and train...I know a ton of them.
So if I just wait a few more years?
Yeah. Were you not planning on making it that long or something?
I find it hilarious that I point out none of the doom and gloom has happened to me, and I'm told basically that it will "eventually".
How long is eventually? It's not as if my lifestyle is new to me. It started with "takes more than a few weeks." Then it was months. Now we're into years. Do we go to decades next? It's exactly the same as being told that you'll just magically start gaining weight when you're "older". You want me to check back when I'm 90?
How long have you been in a deficit?0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »
I find it hilarious that I point out none of the doom and gloom has happened to me, and I'm told basically that it will "eventually".
How long is eventually? It's not as if my lifestyle is new to me. It started with "takes more than a few weeks." Then it was months. Now we're into years. Do we go to decades next? It's exactly the same as being told that you'll just magically start gaining weight when you're "older". You want me to check back when I'm 90?
Well. Let's see. I was always a bit on the heavy side and heard about the complications. Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, less energy, increased risk of heart attack, stroke, certain cancers... But hey. I didn't have any of that. I'd been overweight since I was about 10 (granted, it was only by about 5-10 lbs back then, not the 130 extra I ultimately ballooned out to 34 years later, but my point is I've been heavy most of my life.) and, apart from feeling a little depressed when I realized that many of the clothes I liked on the mannequins didn't come in my size or, if they did, weren't flattering on me... "none of the doom and gloom" ever happened to me.
...Until it did.
One day my leg swelled up and I went to the emergency room where they came up with a diagnosis of cellulitus. They gave me IV antibiotics and sent me home with a prescription for oral ones. Two days later, that leg erupted in water blisters. They were lanced, but left behind an infected weeping wound that needed more antibiotics (3 courses of the one that actually worked, but 4 earlier courses of "Let's give you 10 days of this and see if it helps any"), daily dressing changes for three months, visits from home-care nurses, and got me a referral to a vascular surgeon. The verdict? Forcing my legs to carry about twice the weight they'd been designed to, give or take a few pounds, had caused the veins in my legs to collapse and impacted my lymphatic system, giving me lymphedema. I was told I'd need compression stockings to manage it, but until the weeping wound healed, I couldn't even get fitted for them. In addition, any time I break the skin on that leg, it takes forever to heal and runs the risk of infection. Sometimes, a topical antibiotic helps. Sometimes, the leg swells up anyway and it takes 2, sometimes 3 courses of oral antibiotics to get it under control. So now, I worry about building up a resistance to them.
The other piece of advice I was given was the one that sent me here: losing weight is one of the best things I can do to manage the condition.
And yes. I said 'manage'. This isn't going away. To date, there is no cure. It's not going to disappear. It might flare up again. Or I might develop a tolerance to antibiotics that could impact my recovery from unrelated conditions. Last month, I missed a family get-together because I was afraid that flying with a cold would give me an ear infection. In the past, I would have probably figured it was worth the risk, especially since the ticket was non-refundable and we didn't have cancellation insurance. Not now.
For 34 years, I was fat, but in reasonably good health, with no serious conditions. But eventually, I did lose the Russian Roulette spin. But hey, that's me. I'm sure there are plenty of people like me who are still "over-fueling" but not yet suffering for it. Under-fueling can be just as risky. And just as irreversible.
12 -
Geocitiesuser wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Geocitiesuser wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »EbonyDahlia wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »This is bad advice.
It's not bad advice. I have a target of 1450. I get an extra 300 a day on average for exercise. If I eat 1750 I don't lose weight. If I eat 1450 I do lose weight. It's quite ok NOT to eat your exercise calories unless you are working out really hard and eating very little and have a massive deficit.
A 300 calorie burn generally means I was working out pretty hard (that's ~ a 3.5-4 mile run for a non-obese female). I'm with Blitzia on this: I think the problem is with people over-estimating their burns (the 'intense yoga session' or 'I waddled around the grocery store for some extra minutes and my Fitbit says I burned a kazillion calories extra today' folks).
It's a 2.5-3 mile run. for "a non-obese female" And 25-40 minutes isn't "working out pretty hard"
I call that a short, easy run, and no reason to eat more. At eight miles running, I eat a little more that day. Between 200-300 calories more. This has not hurt my performance at all. Distance and pace have both been steadily increasing.
doesn't matter what you call it...
It's still not necessary to eat a ton to "fuel" for a 3 mile run.
Nobody is arguing to eat a "ton"...but you could certainly eat another XXX calories provided the estimate is relatively accurate and you would still lose weight at the rate that you told MFP you wanted to...which is the whole point of the question.
Could.
If I wanted to, and were hungry. Neither of those conditions apply, and the world has not ended.
You know that things can take time to develop right? Most overtraining injuries and issues aren't actually a matter of overtraining but rather an issue of underfeeding activity and they happen over time. Hopefully you won't have any issues, but there are plenty of people who do and have had issues.
Personally, I train for my fitness and performance and improved fitness and performance and feeding properly is a part of that...lean, healthy, and fit people eat and train...I know a ton of them.
So if I just wait a few more years?
Yeah. Were you not planning on making it that long or something?
I find it hilarious that I point out none of the doom and gloom has happened to me, and I'm told basically that it will "eventually".
How long is eventually? It's not as if my lifestyle is new to me. It started with "takes more than a few weeks." Then it was months. Now we're into years. Do we go to decades next? It's exactly the same as being told that you'll just magically start gaining weight when you're "older". You want me to check back when I'm 90?
It might, it might not. No one is invincible. For purposes of discussion with strangers on forums here, especially those seeking advice, it is highly advisable to suggest the most health-conscious paths. For some of us we are concerned about our health 1, 5, and 30 years from now. It's a quality of life thing. I didn't follow the whole thread, so I'm not so sure why you've very combative about it. You seem to be claiming that other people's workouts don't qualify as intense enough, and suggesting that very low calories vs activity level has no long term consequence based on anecdotal evidence. So... shrug?
Agreed. Additionally, it's best to tell strangers on forums to use MFP the way it was designed, which is to eat back exercise calories (and adjust as needed.)10 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »None the less, I don't find it necessary to add 300 calories to my intake to "make up" for a 3 mile run. Far from the doom and gloom predicted by some of the naysayers here, it hasn't killed my energy levels, my nails are not brittle, my hair is not falling out, my pace has increased (I just PR'd three different distances in the last six weeks in races), and I am not starving to death.
The sky will not fall down if I don't "eat back" those calories.
Nor do I.0 -
@estherdragonbat I wanted to say your post was "awesome", but that's kind of awkward. What you've gone through is certainly not awesome. Your testimony, however, is. Thanks for sharing this.7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions