My Macros
Options
Replies
-
That is exactly what I was trying to say. I do not want to lose weight slowly. I am okay with not eating back my exercise calories.
That is totally up to you. The bigger deficit you have every day, the faster you lose weight. I would just caution you that you might get push-back on that, as it's generally not the way MFP encourages people to lose weight. When people ask for advice on the forums, other people will speak up if they believe what the OP is doing is unhealthy, even if it's somewhat off topic. And you do want to make sure you're eating enough to keep your body running well. Not eating exercise calories can be unhealthy if you're pushing your body too hard, is all. Good luck!0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »MegaMooseEsq wrote: »Okay so I am understanding this a bit more now so I want to say thank you. The only question that still arises is in the example you used. Say I go for that run and it is my only exercise for that day. I eat those 200 calories to gain back what i lost. Yes, that might leave me with the same deficit I started out with but how am I gping to burng off the rest of the base calories so that i end up with a bigger expenditure than intake of calories before i end the day? I do not want any calories to carry over into the next day when I wake up in the morning. You see what I am saying? I hope I made this clear for you.
You aren't carrying anything over. Your body is using 2000 calories to maintain your current weight. Any time your net consumption is below that number, you lose weight. Eating exercise calories *does* lead to slower weight loss, but the idea with the MFP system is that it is healthier to keep to a consistent deficit every day rather than pushing yourself to burn every last calorie possible. So back to that example: your body needs 2000 calories to stay at your current weight. Your goal is to have a 500 calorie deficit every day. You can reach that goal by eating 1500 and not exercising at all, or by eating 2000 and burning 500. This adds up to a 3500 deficit a week, which is about a one pound loss. There are a lot of benefits to exercise, but bottom line, losing weight is about cutting calories, and it isn't necessary to work out to do that.
That is exactly what I was trying to say. I do not want to lose weight slowly. I am okay with not eating back my exercise calories.
The "slowness" is what protects your muscle mass (the stuff you don't want to lose while losing weight), ensures you meet your nutritional needs, and helps you maintain energy. If you chose a goal of one pound a week, why do you now want to lose more than that?
I can simply increase my daily intake of lean protein to solve this issue. Would this be a possible solution? And I just want to lose this fat and achieve my goal in 3 to 4 months. I think it is doable. The muscle I lose while doing this can be built up again once the fat i lost. It seems to make sense in theory1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »MegaMooseEsq wrote: »Okay so I am understanding this a bit more now so I want to say thank you. The only question that still arises is in the example you used. Say I go for that run and it is my only exercise for that day. I eat those 200 calories to gain back what i lost. Yes, that might leave me with the same deficit I started out with but how am I gping to burng off the rest of the base calories so that i end up with a bigger expenditure than intake of calories before i end the day? I do not want any calories to carry over into the next day when I wake up in the morning. You see what I am saying? I hope I made this clear for you.
You aren't carrying anything over. Your body is using 2000 calories to maintain your current weight. Any time your net consumption is below that number, you lose weight. Eating exercise calories *does* lead to slower weight loss, but the idea with the MFP system is that it is healthier to keep to a consistent deficit every day rather than pushing yourself to burn every last calorie possible. So back to that example: your body needs 2000 calories to stay at your current weight. Your goal is to have a 500 calorie deficit every day. You can reach that goal by eating 1500 and not exercising at all, or by eating 2000 and burning 500. This adds up to a 3500 deficit a week, which is about a one pound loss. There are a lot of benefits to exercise, but bottom line, losing weight is about cutting calories, and it isn't necessary to work out to do that.
That is exactly what I was trying to say. I do not want to lose weight slowly. I am okay with not eating back my exercise calories.
The "slowness" is what protects your muscle mass (the stuff you don't want to lose while losing weight), ensures you meet your nutritional needs, and helps you maintain energy. If you chose a goal of one pound a week, why do you now want to lose more than that?
I can simply increase my daily intake of lean protein to solve this issue. Would this be a possible solution? And I just want to lose this fat and achieve my goal in 3 to 4 months. I think it is doable. The muscle I lose while doing this can be built up again once the fat i lost. It seems to make sense in theory
While eating more protein can help prevent some muscle loss, there is a limit to how much fat your body can burn per day. If your deficit is too large, it will burn muscle instead regardless of how much protein you eat.
While it's true that you could lose weight rapidly and then put on muscle, it's a lot easier to keep muscle than it is to add it back. Adding muscle is *hard*. Not to mention that with a higher body fat percentage at the end of your rapid weight loss, your remaining calorie needs will be lower than they would be if you lost weight at a more moderate rate and maintained more lean body mass.
As other posters have said, it's your choice. But people tend to be much happier when they approach goal weight with more muscle (based on my personal experience and posts I've seen from other people). Some people end rapid weight loss actually feeling fatter (in terms of body fat percentage and the "jiggly" factor they see visually) than they did before.
I have the feeling that this is something you'll need to experience for yourself, so good luck. (I don't mean that as snide and hope it doesn't come across that way. It's just I've noticed over time here that some people have personalities that require them to try things out for themselves and you seem like you may be one of them).2 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »That is exactly what I was trying to say. I do not want to lose weight slowly. I am okay with not eating back my exercise calories.
That is totally up to you. The bigger deficit you have every day, the faster you lose weight. I would just caution you that you might get push-back on that, as it's generally not the way MFP encourages people to lose weight. When people ask for advice on the forums, other people will speak up if they believe what the OP is doing is unhealthy, even if it's somewhat off topic. And you do want to make sure you're eating enough to keep your body running well. Not eating exercise calories can be unhealthy if you're pushing your body too hard, is all. Good luck!
Thank you so much for offering great advice while supporting healthy eating and exercise practices!0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MegaMooseEsq wrote: »Okay so I am understanding this a bit more now so I want to say thank you. The only question that still arises is in the example you used. Say I go for that run and it is my only exercise for that day. I eat those 200 calories to gain back what i lost. Yes, that might leave me with the same deficit I started out with but how am I gping to burng off the rest of the base calories so that i end up with a bigger expenditure than intake of calories before i end the day? I do not want any calories to carry over into the next day when I wake up in the morning. You see what I am saying? I hope I made this clear for you.
You aren't carrying anything over. Your body is using 2000 calories to maintain your current weight. Any time your net consumption is below that number, you lose weight. Eating exercise calories *does* lead to slower weight loss, but the idea with the MFP system is that it is healthier to keep to a consistent deficit every day rather than pushing yourself to burn every last calorie possible. So back to that example: your body needs 2000 calories to stay at your current weight. Your goal is to have a 500 calorie deficit every day. You can reach that goal by eating 1500 and not exercising at all, or by eating 2000 and burning 500. This adds up to a 3500 deficit a week, which is about a one pound loss. There are a lot of benefits to exercise, but bottom line, losing weight is about cutting calories, and it isn't necessary to work out to do that.
That is exactly what I was trying to say. I do not want to lose weight slowly. I am okay with not eating back my exercise calories.
The "slowness" is what protects your muscle mass (the stuff you don't want to lose while losing weight), ensures you meet your nutritional needs, and helps you maintain energy. If you chose a goal of one pound a week, why do you now want to lose more than that?
I can simply increase my daily intake of lean protein to solve this issue. Would this be a possible solution? And I just want to lose this fat and achieve my goal in 3 to 4 months. I think it is doable. The muscle I lose while doing this can be built up again once the fat i lost. It seems to make sense in theory
While eating more protein can help prevent some muscle loss, there is a limit to how much fat your body can burn per day. If your deficit is too large, it will burn muscle instead regardless of how much protein you eat.
While it's true that you could lose weight rapidly and then put on muscle, it's a lot easier to keep muscle than it is to add it back. Adding muscle is *hard*. Not to mention that with a higher body fat percentage at the end of your rapid weight loss, your remaining calorie needs will be lower than they would be if you lost weight at a more moderate rate and maintained more lean body mass.
As other posters have said, it's your choice. But people tend to be much happier when they approach goal weight with more muscle (based on my personal experience and posts I've seen from other people). Some people end rapid weight loss actually feeling fatter (in terms of body fat percentage and the "jiggly" factor they see visually) than they did before.
I have the feeling that this is something you'll need to experience for yourself, so good luck. (I don't mean that as snide and hope it doesn't come across that way. It's just I've noticed over time here that some people have personalities that require them to try things out for themselves and you seem like you may be one of them).
So it would be smarter to eat back all of my exercise calories post workout? Also, how would I know when it is time to go for a bit larger deficit than 500? Are there any times where you may need to make adjustments after doing the same deficit for a long time?0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »MegaMooseEsq wrote: »Okay so I am understanding this a bit more now so I want to say thank you. The only question that still arises is in the example you used. Say I go for that run and it is my only exercise for that day. I eat those 200 calories to gain back what i lost. Yes, that might leave me with the same deficit I started out with but how am I gping to burng off the rest of the base calories so that i end up with a bigger expenditure than intake of calories before i end the day? I do not want any calories to carry over into the next day when I wake up in the morning. You see what I am saying? I hope I made this clear for you.
You aren't carrying anything over. Your body is using 2000 calories to maintain your current weight. Any time your net consumption is below that number, you lose weight. Eating exercise calories *does* lead to slower weight loss, but the idea with the MFP system is that it is healthier to keep to a consistent deficit every day rather than pushing yourself to burn every last calorie possible. So back to that example: your body needs 2000 calories to stay at your current weight. Your goal is to have a 500 calorie deficit every day. You can reach that goal by eating 1500 and not exercising at all, or by eating 2000 and burning 500. This adds up to a 3500 deficit a week, which is about a one pound loss. There are a lot of benefits to exercise, but bottom line, losing weight is about cutting calories, and it isn't necessary to work out to do that.
That is exactly what I was trying to say. I do not want to lose weight slowly. I am okay with not eating back my exercise calories.
The "slowness" is what protects your muscle mass (the stuff you don't want to lose while losing weight), ensures you meet your nutritional needs, and helps you maintain energy. If you chose a goal of one pound a week, why do you now want to lose more than that?
I can simply increase my daily intake of lean protein to solve this issue. Would this be a possible solution? And I just want to lose this fat and achieve my goal in 3 to 4 months. I think it is doable. The muscle I lose while doing this can be built up again once the fat i lost. It seems to make sense in theory
While eating more protein can help prevent some muscle loss, there is a limit to how much fat your body can burn per day. If your deficit is too large, it will burn muscle instead regardless of how much protein you eat.
While it's true that you could lose weight rapidly and then put on muscle, it's a lot easier to keep muscle than it is to add it back. Adding muscle is *hard*. Not to mention that with a higher body fat percentage at the end of your rapid weight loss, your remaining calorie needs will be lower than they would be if you lost weight at a more moderate rate and maintained more lean body mass.
As other posters have said, it's your choice. But people tend to be much happier when they approach goal weight with more muscle (based on my personal experience and posts I've seen from other people). Some people end rapid weight loss actually feeling fatter (in terms of body fat percentage and the "jiggly" factor they see visually) than they did before.
I have the feeling that this is something you'll need to experience for yourself, so good luck. (I don't mean that as snide and hope it doesn't come across that way. It's just I've noticed over time here that some people have personalities that require them to try things out for themselves and you seem like you may be one of them).
So it would be smarter to eat back all of my exercise calories post workout? Also, how would I know when it is time to go for a bit larger deficit than 500? Are there any times where you may need to make adjustments after doing the same deficit for a long time?
I would say it is smarter not to undergo rapid weight loss (unless it has been recommended by a doctor). If that means eating back at least some of your exercise calories, then yeah.
As you lose weight, you generally make your deficit smaller, not larger.0 -
So it would be smarter to eat back all of my exercise calories post workout? Also, how would I know when it is time to go for a bit larger deficit than 500? Are there any times where you may need to make adjustments after doing the same deficit for a long time?
You can stick with the 500 calorie deficit as long as you want - the primary reason people "plateau" (i.e. stop losing weight after losing for a while) is because the more weight you lose, the smaller your margin for error is (because smaller bodies need fewer calories to maintain their current weight), and so if you've been sloppy with your calorie tracking it will catch up with you eventually.0 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »So it would be smarter to eat back all of my exercise calories post workout? Also, how would I know when it is time to go for a bit larger deficit than 500? Are there any times where you may need to make adjustments after doing the same deficit for a long time?
You can stick with the 500 calorie deficit as long as you want - the primary reason people "plateau" (i.e. stop losing weight after losing for a while) is because the more weight you lose, the smaller your margin for error is (because smaller bodies need fewer calories to maintain their current weight), and so if you've been sloppy with your calorie tracking it will catch up with you eventually.
How often should I readjust my maintenance calories and my deficit to prevent myself from plateauing? @janejellyroll0 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »So it would be smarter to eat back all of my exercise calories post workout? Also, how would I know when it is time to go for a bit larger deficit than 500? Are there any times where you may need to make adjustments after doing the same deficit for a long time?
You can stick with the 500 calorie deficit as long as you want - the primary reason people "plateau" (i.e. stop losing weight after losing for a while) is because the more weight you lose, the smaller your margin for error is (because smaller bodies need fewer calories to maintain their current weight), and so if you've been sloppy with your calorie tracking it will catch up with you eventually.
How often should I readjust my maintenance calories and my deficit to prevent myself from plateauing? @janejellyroll
Most people do it every 5-10 pounds, I think. When I was losing weight, I did it every five pounds.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »MegaMooseEsq wrote: »So it would be smarter to eat back all of my exercise calories post workout? Also, how would I know when it is time to go for a bit larger deficit than 500? Are there any times where you may need to make adjustments after doing the same deficit for a long time?
You can stick with the 500 calorie deficit as long as you want - the primary reason people "plateau" (i.e. stop losing weight after losing for a while) is because the more weight you lose, the smaller your margin for error is (because smaller bodies need fewer calories to maintain their current weight), and so if you've been sloppy with your calorie tracking it will catch up with you eventually.
How often should I readjust my maintenance calories and my deficit to prevent myself from plateauing? @janejellyroll
Most people do it every 5-10 pounds, I think. When I was losing weight, I did it every five pounds.
Thank you!0 -
I have belly fat I want to lose. Lower abdominal visceral fat. I have a large frame. I will get my body fat measured today at the gym and let you know. I may be 27% max but i highly doubt I would be that high.
I think you have gotten and seem to be taking lots of good input. One thing that jumped out at me. You feel that you only need to lose 22 lbs but you are just slightly into the "obese" category on the BMI scale. Losing 22 lbs would put you in the middle of the "overweight" category. Better for health but getting into the "normal" category would be even better. That would mean getting below 220. BMI is not always the most accurate indicator. Just food for thought.
Also, you've mentioned visceral fat. I'm not trying to pry into your personal life, but why would this be an issue. Did you get some specific diagnosis that caused you to be concerned with that?
Lastly, the weight loss phase is only part of the battle. The thing that is equally important is learning how to stay at the more healthy weight. This makes a compelling case, IMHO, for a smaller deficit, a slower loss rate but one that is not that different than what your long term eating habits will look like. With diabetes, the more you can get to a healthy weight, the better your overall health outlook will be. All the best!0 -
Because your in such a high deficit (1000) calories you need those carbs for energy. If you were to set it to 1lb a week the carbs would go lower0
-
HarlemNY17 wrote: »Because your in such a high deficit (1000) calories you need those carbs for energy. If you were to set it to 1lb a week the carbs would go lower
Why would carbs need to go lower?0 -
I have belly fat I want to lose. Lower abdominal visceral fat. I have a large frame. I will get my body fat measured today at the gym and let you know. I may be 27% max but i highly doubt I would be that high.
I think you have gotten and seem to be taking lots of good input. One thing that jumped out at me. You feel that you only need to lose 22 lbs but you are just slightly into the "obese" category on the BMI scale. Losing 22 lbs would put you in the middle of the "overweight" category. Better for health but getting into the "normal" category would be even better. That would mean getting below 220. BMI is not always the most accurate indicator. Just food for thought.
Also, you've mentioned visceral fat. I'm not trying to pry into your personal life, but why would this be an issue. Did you get some specific diagnosis that caused you to be concerned with that?
Lastly, the weight loss phase is only part of the battle. The thing that is equally important is learning how to stay at the more healthy weight. This makes a compelling case, IMHO, for a smaller deficit, a slower loss rate but one that is not that different than what your long term eating habits will look like. With diabetes, the more you can get to a healthy weight, the better your overall health outlook will be. All the best!
So with my size and frame I don't believe the BMI is a good indicator as you mentioned above. Right now I sit at 262 and that to me is a big overweight but not obese. If I can get down to 240 then I will be in a normal weight range. I am 6'6 so I am not short and stocky as the BMI would suggest.
A lot of people close to me feel as though the weight at which I would look my best would be 225 - 230 lbs. I chose 240 as a starting point and once i get there if I feel as though I would like to decrease my body fat a little more than I will work on reaching that goal.
As you noticed before I am Diabetic. I am 27 now but priro to getting Diabetes at 14 I was extremely overweight. When I got Diabetes I lost a lot of my fat and slimmed out which motivated me to start going to the gym. The only thing that stuck with me is some of the baby fat or the visceral fat in my stomach. To be honest, it bothers me. I have always wanted abs and thats why it bothers me so much.
Thank you for youe input man! I greatly appreciate it!0 -
HarlemNY17 wrote: »Because your in such a high deficit (1000) calories you need those carbs for energy. If you were to set it to 1lb a week the carbs would go lower
Thanks man! That seems to be the same answer everyone else has given me which is a bit of a relief0 -
HarlemNY17 wrote: »Because your in such a high deficit (1000) calories you need those carbs for energy. If you were to set it to 1lb a week the carbs would go lower
Why would carbs need to go lower?
I think he is telling me that if I set my weight loss goal to 2 lbs per week I would need to eat back the exercise calories (the extra carbs) to restore the energy I lost from working out. However, if I set a slower and more steady goal of 1 lb per week I will not need to eat as many carbs to restore my energy. I believe that is what he is trying to say.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions