Don't add eat exercise calories

123468

Replies

  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 7,753 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    gofaster01 wrote: »
    I wasn't loosing weight at first then I stopped adding my exercise calories to my goal calories. I still exercise but I don't add the extra calories to my intake and I lost 9 pounds.


    At the end of the day, a wise rabbit used to say, "the winner is the one who eats the most and still loses". I'm not sure why people tend to try to aim for the lowest possible intake, or rapid weight loss and then encourage others to do so as well since both approaches can have adverse effects in the long term.

    I agree with wise rabbit.

    Further to that I also think the winner is the one who finds the easiest method for them.

    So, as I said a month ago, if OP finds her logging works as is without eating back calories ( ie she is losing at appropriate rate doing this ) then she should keep doing exactly that.

    If your method ain't broke, don't fix it.



  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    Nony_Mouse wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    ritzvin wrote: »
    This is bad advice. :disappointed:

    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.

    Eating back the calories legitimately burned on a 3 mile run isn't a ton, it's snack. No one is suggesting eating more than what is burnt, we're advocating properly fueling exercise and not creating a larger than necessary deficit in the name of losing weight a bit faster at the possible expense of health and fitness. To be clear, I'm posting this for the benefit of others reading this thread who may be under the impression that eating back exercise calories is somehow bad.

    "Properly fueling" is something that I hear from people like Tess Holliday and Whitney Thore very frequently with respect to mild or moderate exercise that doesn't involve significant calorie drain. I see it in people at the gym who are doing PWOs, protein shakes, protein bars, and then doing a half hour (or less) of light cardio that is followed up with more snacks.

    There are people here who are on the "eat those calories" bandwagon, and will talk a good game about nutrition, but then you'll see that they're eating those calories as cookies, ice cream, wine, cakes, chocolates and candy, all the while castigating those who don't "eat those calories".
    I'm genuinely curious, so i have to ask. @heiliskrimsli and @fitmom4lifemfp , are you two friends in real life? You have very, very similar thoughts and opinions.

    I have no idea who she is in real life.
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    At the end of the day, a wise rabbit used to say, "the winner is the one who eats the most and still loses".

    Who determined that eating "the most" is winning? Not everyone is interested in trying to eat "the most". That kind of thing can easily lead to attempting to "out run your fork", which won't help someone lose weight at all. It can lead to overeating and binge eating. And it's why a lot of people get overweight in the first place.
    Why is wanting to be able to eat as much as possible some sort of reflection of a terrible character? That's something used in the pro-ana community, shaming people for eating more than the bare minimum. It's bizarre and somewhat alarming to me that this language is being used prolifically by two users in this forum who get hyper defensive when called on it.

    And the FA/HAES community seems to be very focused on consuming the largest possible quantity of food at any given time, often under the guise of "fueling" their workouts.
    As my calories lower with weight loss I like to maximise my intake as much as possible. I feel so so much better during my workouts the more I'm able to eat. When I take a diet break I feel like frickin' She Ra because of those few extra calories.

    Not everyone is out to maximise intake. There is something in between maximise intake and being anorexic. Some, like (based on my reading of her comments) @fitmom4lifemfp and I have decided that the path that works for us is in the middle. Why are you so insistent that everyone's path needs to be "maximise intake" and so opposed to anyone hearing that there are alternatives to "maximising intake"?
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    I am in the camp of eat as much as you can while you still hit your goals...be it losing or maintaining or bulking doesn't matter.

    Eating more means you have the energy for your day.

    But if you look at what I said it's about hitting your goals...if you are eating lots and gaining but want to maintain you are doing it wrong and not winning.

    If you are maintaining you are maximising intake...that's just facts.

    Or someone takes a moderate approach where they don't really make any specific effort to eat the exercise calories, and their intake may vary on different days. Maybe they run 3 miles a day on 3 different days and they don't "eat back" those calories, but they go out on the weekend and have 3 IPAs because not eating their exercise calories every single day means they've got room for that.
    I am also in the camp that believes once you get all your macros in eat the cake wine or beer...why not life is too short.

    One of the reasons given to eat more calories because of exercise is to avoid malnutrition/meet your macro needs. If those are met, and you don't want the cookies and the ice cream and the wine and the beer and whatnot, why eat it? There are people who just don't have interest in one, some, or all of those things. Some people want to eat Halo Top by the pint every day. Some don't. Each person is going to have to figure out what lifestyle they can sustain.
    I am also in the camp that if you are doing well, hitting goals, healthy and fit and not hungry don't eat...

    See you can have it both ways..it's not black and white...it's grey.

    That is exactly my point with the statement that eating exercise calories daily is not mandatory. Different strokes, and all that.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,878 Member
    ritzvin wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    ritzvin wrote: »
    This is bad advice. :disappointed:

    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.

    Yes. When I run 3 miles, I definitely eat those ~200 calories, or else I'm going to be starving, grumpy and ready to kill someone at tango (which puts me at a total goal of 1440 calories for the day). (And I will also be eating or drinking back a low-ball estimate of my time "ballroom dancing, slow"). Incidentally, today IS my short easy run day.

    I do think that during weight loss some people do fine not eating back exercise calories (especially if their runs are just three miles or so). But when you're maintaining and active, you have to figure out some kind of strategy for getting back the calories you're burning or your body is eventually going to rebel (or, in the case of people like me, my hunger is going to make my mind rebel before my body has a chance to give out).
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    ritzvin wrote: »
    This is bad advice. :disappointed:

    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?

    Long enough to know what works for me. I am not asking for advice.
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    ritzvin wrote: »
    This is bad advice. :disappointed:

    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.



    I'm doing just fine. The results of my diet and exercise are very much exactly what I want them to be.

    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.

    As I have repeatedly said, different people can see different results of their diet and lifestyle. I've never had diabetes, cellulitis or lymphedma. I am, in fact, in very good health.
    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.

    I take it you're not suffering malnutrition either?

    I wasn't offering advice. You seem singularly uninterested in the strategies of people who have been successful. Some people learn better working things through on their own.

    There are many strategies that can be used for success. Each person will have to employ the one that works best for them. Eating back exercise calories on a daily basis is one strategy that works some. Not doing so because some days will be higher than others is also a viable strategy that works for other people.
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    ritzvin wrote: »
    This is bad advice. :disappointed:

    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?

    Long enough to know what works for me. I am not asking for advice.
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    ritzvin wrote: »
    This is bad advice. :disappointed:

    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.



    I'm doing just fine. The results of my diet and exercise are very much exactly what I want them to be.

    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.

    As I have repeatedly said, different people can see different results of their diet and lifestyle. I've never had diabetes, cellulitis or lymphedma. I am, in fact, in very good health.
    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.

    I take it you're not suffering malnutrition either?

    I wasn't offering advice. You seem singularly uninterested in the strategies of people who have been successful. Some people learn better working things through on their own.

    There are many strategies that can be used for success. Each person will have to employ the one that works best for them. Eating back exercise calories on a daily basis is one strategy that works some. Not doing so because some days will be higher than others is also a viable strategy that works for other people.

    If you're not eating exercise calories back on a particular day because you know you're going to use them later in the week, I wouldn't consider that to be a significantly different strategy. It's just using a longer time frame. Lots of people bank calories because it's a better fit for their lifestyle or preferences.

    None of the advice here (which has all been to "eat those calories back") ever mentioned that as a possibility, either. It's all "eat 50% of them at least". The way people state it, at least in this thread, is as a daily requirement.
  • DJ_Skywalker
    DJ_Skywalker Posts: 420 Member
    edited May 2017


    Can we talk about me for a second? ;) I am also in the camp of not eating back daily and "banking" my calories to feed on goodies and rum at the weekend x
  • xmichaelyx
    xmichaelyx Posts: 883 Member
    edited May 2017
    This is bad advice. :disappointed:

    I never eat back my exercise calories. Doing so just adds one more layer of uncertainty to what's already an inexact practice.

    Why make this more difficult than it needs to be?

    edit: I guess it might be worthwhile for marathon runners. But for my 45-minutes or so of lifting, it's not necessary. If the scale moves a direction I don't want it to, I just adjust calories accordingly.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,878 Member
    xmichaelyx wrote: »
    This is bad advice. :disappointed:

    I never eat back my exercise calories. Doing so just adds one more layer of uncertainty to what's already an inexact practice.

    Why make this more difficult than it needs to be?

    edit: I guess it might be worthwhile for marathon runners. But for my 45-minutes or so of lifting, it's not necessary. If the scale moves a direction I don't want it to, I just adjust calories accordingly.

    Well, yeah. Context is important here. People who are regularly doing cardio will have different needs for refueling than people who are mainly focusing on resistance training. I'm going to say it would be virtually impossible for someone to regularly run moderate to long distances and not factor that into their calorie needs in some way.
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    xmichaelyx wrote: »
    This is bad advice. :disappointed:

    I never eat back my exercise calories. Doing so just adds one more layer of uncertainty to what's already an inexact practice.

    Why make this more difficult than it needs to be?

    edit: I guess it might be worthwhile for marathon runners. But for my 45-minutes or so of lifting, it's not necessary. If the scale moves a direction I don't want it to, I just adjust calories accordingly.

    Well, yeah. Context is important here. People who are regularly doing cardio will have different needs for refueling than people who are mainly focusing on resistance training. I'm going to say it would be virtually impossible for someone to regularly run moderate to long distances and not factor that into their calorie needs in some way.

    And i also see it regularly said here that if you're lifting, as in heavy lifting with breaks between sets etc, then the calories aren't going to be huge and just self test.
  • SCoil123
    SCoil123 Posts: 2,108 Member
    I use this site as designed together with my fitbit. That works for me. I do workouts like Insanity and take a boxing class twice a week, along with lifting a few times a week. I need to fuel those workouts and proper recovery from them. My goal is to get fit, not skinny. This means I need to focus on muscle retention so keeping my deficit modest and protein levels up is important to me. I have eaten back 75-100% of my activity calories from the beginning. I'm now 10lbs from goal weight and have been able to not only maintain but add some muscle mass.