Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
to eat back exercise calories
System
Posts: 1,920 MFP Staff
This discussion was created from replies split from: Not losing - don't know why.
0
Replies
-
Most people suck at estimating portion sizes.
We also suck at remembering all the things we eat.
So if you are not measuring your portions and logging your food, then you pretty much have no real idea how many calories you are eating on a given day. You cannot exercise your way past a bad diet.
If you are a high performance athlete looking to maintain or gain, then yes, by all means eat your exercise calories... because you actually need to replace what you use in order to maintain or gain weight.
But if your goal is to lose weight, the entire point is to create a calorie deficit and there is no need to eat back your exercise calories.
Think about it logically.
If you increase your activity to burn more calories (create a deficit), but then eat more calories to compensate(eliminate the deficit), all you have done is sabotaged your efforts.56 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »
If you are a high performance athlete looking to maintain or gain, then yes, by all means eat your exercise calories... because you actually need to replace what you use in order to maintain or gain weight.
But if your goal is to lose weight, the entire point is to create a calorie deficit and there is no need to eat back your exercise calories.
Think about it logically.
If you increase your activity to burn more calories (create a deficit), but then eat more calories to compensate(eliminate the deficit), all you have done is sabotaged your efforts.
Please learn about how MFP works before you give advice on how to use it - you appear to have no idea.
Your eating goal ALREADY has a deficit in it to lose weight. No exercise expected or accounted for.
Deficit is NOT created by exercise and then you eat at maintenance - that is an optional way of doing it - but it's much easier to cut 500 from eating level than to workout 500 calories every day above and beyond what you were going to burn anyway.
OP - MFP is trying to teach a life lesson regarding weight management.
You do more, you eat more (like when you exercise).
You do less, you eat less (like when you become more sedentary during winter).
In a diet a tad less in either case.
So ignore the misunderstood advice above from other poster who doesn't understand how MFP works.46 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »Most people suck at estimating portion sizes.
We also suck at remembering all the things we eat.
So if you are not measuring your portions and logging your food, then you pretty much have no real idea how many calories you are eating on a given day. You cannot exercise your way past a bad diet.
If you are a high performance athlete looking to maintain or gain, then yes, by all means eat your exercise calories... because you actually need to replace what you use in order to maintain or gain weight.
But if your goal is to lose weight, the entire point is to create a calorie deficit and there is no need to eat back your exercise calories.
Think about it logically.
If you increase your activity to burn more calories (create a deficit), but then eat more calories to compensate(eliminate the deficit), all you have done is sabotaged your efforts.
While you are absolutely right that people are terrible about estimating portion sizes and remembering all the things they ate, your point about exercise calories is incorrect.
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. Others, however, are able to lose weight while eating 100% of their exercise calories.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/818082/exercise-calories-again-wtf/p117 -
Please learn about how MFP works before you give advice on how to use it - you appear to have no idea.
Your eating goal ALREADY has a deficit in it to lose weight. No exercise expected or accounted for.
Deficit is NOT created by exercise and then you eat at maintenance - that is an optional way of doing it - but it's much easier to cut 500 from eating level than to workout 500 calories every day above and beyond what you were going to burn anyway.
OP - MFP is trying to teach a life lesson regarding weight management.
You do more, you eat more (like when you exercise).
You do less, you eat less (like when you become more sedentary during winter).
In a diet a tad less in either case.
So ignore the misunderstood advice above from other poster who doesn't understand how MFP works.
Thank you, but I already fully understand "how it works". What I am saying is that "how it works" is somewhat counterproductive if your goal is to lose weight as quickly as possible.
Bigger deficit = faster weight loss.
Thus, it is better to let your exercise calories create a slightly bigger calorie deficit (in addition to the one already built into the MFP calculation), instead of trying to eat them back.
The amount of calories you are expending through exercise is probably trivial unless you are doing some very high intensity workouts.
Eating back your exercise calories will have one effect, slower weight loss.
Not that hard to comprehend.62 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »Please learn about how MFP works before you give advice on how to use it - you appear to have no idea.
Your eating goal ALREADY has a deficit in it to lose weight. No exercise expected or accounted for.
Deficit is NOT created by exercise and then you eat at maintenance - that is an optional way of doing it - but it's much easier to cut 500 from eating level than to workout 500 calories every day above and beyond what you were going to burn anyway.
OP - MFP is trying to teach a life lesson regarding weight management.
You do more, you eat more (like when you exercise).
You do less, you eat less (like when you become more sedentary during winter).
In a diet a tad less in either case.
So ignore the misunderstood advice above from other poster who doesn't understand how MFP works.
Thank you, but I already fully understand "how it works". What I am saying is that "how it works" is somewhat counterproductive if your goal is to lose weight as quickly as possible.
Bigger deficit = faster weight loss.
Thus, it is better to let your exercise calories create a slightly bigger calorie deficit (in addition to the one already built into the MFP calculation), instead of trying to eat them back.
The amount of calories you are expending through exercise is probably trivial unless you are doing some very high intensity workouts.
Eating back your exercise calories will have one effect, slower weight loss.
Not that hard to comprehend.
Bigger deficit also means more muscle loss and not fueling your workouts. This site is set up to give you a calorie goal to reach that is also your deficit. Bigger deficits also cause a lot of people to binge because they are simply not eating enough. It's happened over and over here where people quit because they're trying a deficit that is not sustainable. All calculators take in exercise activity, this one simply does it as it occurs, and it works.
ETA: Even a hundred calories of exercise is enough to make a sustainable difference for some. Petite females usually don't have a lot to play with. My 150 from weight training makes a difference in how I feel for my next session.33 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »Please learn about how MFP works before you give advice on how to use it - you appear to have no idea.
Your eating goal ALREADY has a deficit in it to lose weight. No exercise expected or accounted for.
Deficit is NOT created by exercise and then you eat at maintenance - that is an optional way of doing it - but it's much easier to cut 500 from eating level than to workout 500 calories every day above and beyond what you were going to burn anyway.
OP - MFP is trying to teach a life lesson regarding weight management.
You do more, you eat more (like when you exercise).
You do less, you eat less (like when you become more sedentary during winter).
In a diet a tad less in either case.
So ignore the misunderstood advice above from other poster who doesn't understand how MFP works.
Thank you, but I already fully understand "how it works". What I am saying is that "how it works" is somewhat counterproductive if your goal is to lose weight as quickly as possible.
Bigger deficit = faster weight loss.
Thus, it is better to let your exercise calories create a slightly bigger calorie deficit (in addition to the one already built into the MFP calculation), instead of trying to eat them back.
The amount of calories you are expending through exercise is probably trivial unless you are doing some very high intensity workouts.
Eating back your exercise calories will have one effect, slower weight loss.
Not that hard to comprehend.
What is "trivial" for you is not "trivial" for everyone. If a person's calorie goal is 1200, which is common for sedentary, short women, then burning 200 calories in exercise and not eating those 200 calories back means the person only consumed net 1000 calories that day. That isn't healthy or sustainable, and for many people it does not take a very high intensity workout to burn 200 calories or more.33 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »Please learn about how MFP works before you give advice on how to use it - you appear to have no idea.
Your eating goal ALREADY has a deficit in it to lose weight. No exercise expected or accounted for.
Deficit is NOT created by exercise and then you eat at maintenance - that is an optional way of doing it - but it's much easier to cut 500 from eating level than to workout 500 calories every day above and beyond what you were going to burn anyway.
OP - MFP is trying to teach a life lesson regarding weight management.
You do more, you eat more (like when you exercise).
You do less, you eat less (like when you become more sedentary during winter).
In a diet a tad less in either case.
So ignore the misunderstood advice above from other poster who doesn't understand how MFP works.
Thank you, but I already fully understand "how it works". What I am saying is that "how it works" is somewhat counterproductive if your goal is to lose weight as quickly as possible.
Bigger deficit = faster weight loss.
Thus, it is better to let your exercise calories create a slightly bigger calorie deficit (in addition to the one already built into the MFP calculation), instead of trying to eat them back.
The amount of calories you are expending through exercise is probably trivial unless you are doing some very high intensity workouts.
Eating back your exercise calories will have one effect, slower weight loss.
Not that hard to comprehend.
Unless you are morbidly obese the goal should not be too lose weight as quickly as possible. It should be to lose weight at a slow steady pace preserving as much muscle mass as you can.
Your post is nonsense.41 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »Please learn about how MFP works before you give advice on how to use it - you appear to have no idea.
Your eating goal ALREADY has a deficit in it to lose weight. No exercise expected or accounted for.
Deficit is NOT created by exercise and then you eat at maintenance - that is an optional way of doing it - but it's much easier to cut 500 from eating level than to workout 500 calories every day above and beyond what you were going to burn anyway.
OP - MFP is trying to teach a life lesson regarding weight management.
You do more, you eat more (like when you exercise).
You do less, you eat less (like when you become more sedentary during winter).
In a diet a tad less in either case.
So ignore the misunderstood advice above from other poster who doesn't understand how MFP works.
Thank you, but I already fully understand "how it works". What I am saying is that "how it works" is somewhat counterproductive if your goal is to lose weight as quickly as possible.
Bigger deficit = faster weight loss.
Thus, it is better to let your exercise calories create a slightly bigger calorie deficit (in addition to the one already built into the MFP calculation), instead of trying to eat them back.
The amount of calories you are expending through exercise is probably trivial unless you are doing some very high intensity workouts.
Eating back your exercise calories will have one effect, slower weight loss.
Not that hard to comprehend.
Faster weight loss isn't every one's goal, and it shouldn't be everyone's goal.
Slower sustainable weight loss is better to preserve lean muscle mass, and to create sustainable lifestyle patterns.
23 -
MalkinMagic71 wrote: »Unless you are morbidly obese the goal should not be too lose weight as quickly as possible. It should be to lose weight at a slow steady pace preserving as much muscle mass as you can.
Your post is nonsense.collectingblues wrote: »Faster weight loss isn't every one's goal, and it shouldn't be everyone's goal.
Slower sustainable weight loss is better to preserve lean muscle mass, and to create sustainable lifestyle patterns.
Sorry you two, but that is just plain wrong.
Even if you are fasting and eating nothing at all while training, muscle tissue is highly conserved. Meaning that muscle mass is the just about the last thing to go and one of the first things repaired. Your body simply does not burn muscles for fuel unless you are starving... and I mean literally starving, not just oops, I skipped breakfast and feel a bit peckish.
Simply put, fat is "stored food", we (like every other animal) evolved to use those fat stores when there is nothing to eat.
No (healthy) animal on earth preferentially burns muscle tissue while conserving fat stores. That would be a serious evolutionary flaw and any creature that did that would not survive for very long.
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-abstract/57/2/316/2675473?redirectedFrom=fulltext
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2279566/pdf/tacca00095-0049.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20300080
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11147801
https://www.amazon.com/Comparative-Physiology-Fasting-Starvation-Limitation/dp/3642290558
So again, unless you are a body builder looking to gain muscle mass, or high performance athlete (or live in a concentration camp) with a very low body fat, these concerns about eating your exercise calories to preserve lean muscle mass are completely unfounded no matter how often it is repeated by well-meaning, but ill-informed people.
If you want to argue about it, feel free to cite your peer reviewed scientific articles to back up your claims.
As far as calorie deficit goes, you would be better off (especially the petite women who posted noting they have a much smaller calorie budget) to set a more modest calorie deficit goal (for example a dietary deficit of 250 calories instead of 500 calories) and then try to burn the other 250 calories off through exercise (still a total deficit of 500 calories) instead of trying to do a stricter dietary deficit of 500 calories, exercise for 250 and eat back 250.
Edit: typos, added links.
54 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »MalkinMagic71 wrote: »Unless you are morbidly obese the goal should not be too lose weight as quickly as possible. It should be to lose weight at a slow steady pace preserving as much muscle mass as you can.
Your post is nonsense.collectingblues wrote: »Faster weight loss isn't every one's goal, and it shouldn't be everyone's goal.
Slower sustainable weight loss is better to preserve lean muscle mass, and to create sustainable lifestyle patterns.
Sorry you two, but that is just plain wrong.
Even if you are fasting and eating nothing at all while training, muscle tissue is highly conserved. Meaning that muscle mass is the just about the last thing to go and one of the first things repaired. Your body simply does not burn muscles for fuel unless you are starving... and I mean literally starving, not just oops, I skipped breakfast and feel a bit peckish.
Simply put, fat is "stored food", we (like every other animal) evolved to use those fat stores when there is nothing to eat.
No (healthy) animal on earth preferentially burns muscle tissue while conserving fat stores. That would be a serious evolutionary flaw and any creature that did that would not survive for very long.
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-abstract/57/2/316/2675473?redirectedFrom=fulltext
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2279566/pdf/tacca00095-0049.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20300080
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11147801
https://www.amazon.com/Comparative-Physiology-Fasting-Starvation-Limitation/dp/3642290558
So again, unless you are a body builder looking to gain muscle mass, or high performance athlete (or live in a concentration camp) with a very low body fat, these concerns about eating your exercise calories to preserve lean muscle mass are completely unfounded no matter how often it is repeated by well-meaning, but ill-informed people.
If you want to argue about it, feel free to cite your peer reviewed scientific articles to back up your claims.
As far as calorie deficit goes, you would be better off (especially the petite women who posted noting they have a much smaller calorie budget) to set a more modest calorie deficit goal (for example a dietary deficit of 250 calories instead of 500 calories) and then try to burn the other 250 calories off through exercise (still a total deficit of 500 calories) instead of trying to do a stricter dietary deficit of 500 calories, exercise for 250 and eat back 250.
Edit: typos, added links.
Who said the body is burning muscle as fuel instead of fat?
Comments were merely made you'll lose some on big deficit.
You heard the wrong angle. Besides, take your fasting/starvation study and actually have them active doing something.
The fact of the matter is your body is breaking down some muscle somewhere on a daily basis anyway. Just normal process, not a part of a diet. Workouts actually would increase that some.
The problem of eating too little is there's not enough protein then for all the things the body needs it for - so what is considered least important doesn't get it.
Muscle mass just isn't build back up. Slowly but surely.
What helps is if you are using it of course, to a degree. If really a lack of protein, vital functions still going to get it first.
No, fat is still used as fuel, carbs if intensity goes up enough to need them.
The muscle loss is just through normal process - it's why any diet that is extreme and doesn't increase protein by a really huge amount, or doesn't incorporate some resistance training, along with that, shows loss of LBM and muscle mass.18 -
Who said the body is burning muscle as fuel instead of fat?
Comments were merely made you'll lose some on big deficit.
You heard the wrong angle. Besides, take your fasting/starvation study and actually have them active doing something.
The fact of the matter is your body is breaking down some muscle somewhere on a daily basis anyway. Just normal process, not a part of a diet. Workouts actually would increase that some.
The problem of eating too little is there's not enough protein then for all the things the body needs it for - so what is considered least important doesn't get it.
Muscle mass just isn't build back up. Slowly but surely.
What helps is if you are using it of course, to a degree. If really a lack of protein, vital functions still going to get it first.
No, fat is still used as fuel, carbs if intensity goes up enough to need them.
The muscle loss is just through normal process - it's why any diet that is extreme and doesn't increase protein by a really huge amount, or doesn't incorporate some resistance training, along with that, shows loss of LBM and muscle mass.
There is nothing here that supports the notion that you have to "eat back your exercise calories".
Does your body need protein for muscle repair and growth? Sure, but again even if you are fasting it is not like your muscles are going to suddenly waste away unless you are already extremely low on body fat because muscle tissue is highly conserved.
Just make sure you get adequate protein within the calorie budget are already eating. Which you should already be doing.
There is still no need or benefit whatsoever for someone trying to lose weight to eat back their exercise calories.
30 -
There is still no need or benefit whatsoever for someone trying to lose weight to eat back their exercise calories.
[/quote]
If you care about body composition after weight loss, a slower rate of loss will better preserve this.
Rapid Weight Loss vs. Slow Weight Loss: Which is More Effective on Body Composition and Metabolic Risk Factors?
Damoon Ashtary-Larky, Matin Ghanavati, [...], and Meysam Alipour
Note: weight loss was the same in the two groups BUT
Results
A significant reduction in body fat (fat mass (FM), Body fat percentage, Arm fat percentage, feet FM, feet fat percentage) was observed in the slow WL group compared to the rapid WL group. In addition, a significant reduction in lean mass (lean body mass (LBM), fat free mass (FFM), Trunk lean) and total body water and RMR was seen in the rapid WL group compared to the slow WL group.
Conclusions
Weight Loss regardless of its severity could improve anthropometric indicators, although body composition is more favorable following a slow WL.6 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »Who said the body is burning muscle as fuel instead of fat?
Comments were merely made you'll lose some on big deficit.
You heard the wrong angle. Besides, take your fasting/starvation study and actually have them active doing something.
The fact of the matter is your body is breaking down some muscle somewhere on a daily basis anyway. Just normal process, not a part of a diet. Workouts actually would increase that some.
The problem of eating too little is there's not enough protein then for all the things the body needs it for - so what is considered least important doesn't get it.
Muscle mass just isn't build back up. Slowly but surely.
What helps is if you are using it of course, to a degree. If really a lack of protein, vital functions still going to get it first.
No, fat is still used as fuel, carbs if intensity goes up enough to need them.
The muscle loss is just through normal process - it's why any diet that is extreme and doesn't increase protein by a really huge amount, or doesn't incorporate some resistance training, along with that, shows loss of LBM and muscle mass.
There is nothing here that supports the notion that you have to "eat back your exercise calories".
Does your body need protein for muscle repair and growth? Sure, but again even if you are fasting it is not like your muscles are going to suddenly waste away unless you are already extremely low on body fat because muscle tissue is highly conserved.
Just make sure you get adequate protein within the calorie budget are already eating. Which you should already be doing.
There is still no need or benefit whatsoever for someone trying to lose weight to eat back their exercise calories.
You're looking at it purely from a standpoint of maximal weight loss. What you're apparently failing to understand is that the body needs adequate energy to fuel your existence.
If one is doing a substantial amount of strenuous exercise, undereating will adversely affect recovery and can also compromise the quality of their workouts.21 -
You're looking at it purely from a standpoint of maximal weight loss. What you're apparently failing to understand is that the body needs adequate energy to fuel your existence.
If one is doing a substantial amount of strenuous exercise, undereating will adversely affect recovery and can also compromise the quality of their workouts.
No, that is not my standpoint at all.
Try to follow along with what I am actually saying, instead of putting words in my mouth.
I am saying that unless you already have a very low body fat you do not need eat your exercise calories to "fuel" your workout.
Since I apparently need to state the obvious, if you are overweight, you are already carrying around thousands upon thousands of calories in extra "fuel" in the form of body fat!
Again, if you are a high performance athlete, by all means eat those exercise calories! You need them.
But for the average person trying to lose weight, deliberately eating back your exercise calories is just a misguided attempt to justify eating another couple bites of food.
Especially since people tend to over-estimate what they burn, and under-estimate what they eat, you are sabotaging your weight loss efforts by literally eating your progress!
TL:DR:
For people trying to lose weight, there is no physiological need to eat your exercise calories. Exercise should not be used as an excuse to eat more.
54 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »
You're looking at it purely from a standpoint of maximal weight loss. What you're apparently failing to understand is that the body needs adequate energy to fuel your existence.
If one is doing a substantial amount of strenuous exercise, undereating will adversely affect recovery and can also compromise the quality of their workouts.
No, that is not my standpoint at all.
Try to follow along with what I am actually saying, instead of putting words in my mouth.
I am saying that unless you already have a very low body fat you do not need eat your exercise calories to "fuel" your workout.
Since I apparently need to state the obvious, if you are overweight, you are already carrying around thousands upon thousands of calories in extra "fuel" in the form of body fat!
Again, if you are a high performance athlete, by all means eat those exercise calories! You need them.
But for the average person trying to lose weight, deliberately eating back your exercise calories is just a misguided attempt to justify eating another couple bites of food.
Especially since people tend to over-estimate what they burn, and under-estimate what they eat, you are sabotaging your weight loss efforts by literally eating your progress!
TL:DR:
For people trying to lose weight, there is no physiological need to eat your exercise calories. Exercise should not be used as an excuse to eat more.
Maybe someone needs to state the obvious, but creating a too large deficit, for example by not eating your exercise calories when you burn a ton of them can lead to lean body mass loss.22 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Maybe someone needs to state the obvious, but creating a too large deficit, for example by not eating your exercise calories when you burn a ton of them can lead to lean body mass loss.
<Sigh> I originally had this in the previous post, but took it out because it was getting too lengthy, turns out I should have left it in after all.
Let's compare both approaches with the same deficit goal in mind:
If you set an aggressive dietary deficit of 500 calories, and exercise for an additional 250 calories, then "eat them back", how big of a deficit do you have? Answer: 500 calories, because your net change from exercise is now 0.
Now what happens if you set a more modest dietary deficit of 250 calories, do the same amount of exercise and not eat them back? Answer: Still 500 calories.
Assuming you follow both regimens perfectly*:
You are not "setting too large of a deficit", it is the same deficit.
You are not "losing weight too fast", it is the same rate of weight loss
You do not "lose more lean muscle mass", that is an myth.
You do not "need extra fuel to workout", your overly-abundant body fat is your fuel!
*But people are not perfect are they?
The key difference between these approaches, as several people have already mentioned, most people are bad about over-estimating exercise calories and under-estimating food calories.
People love to "round up" when it comes to the calories burned and guesstimate when it comes time to measure food. The net effect is a is smaller than intended calorie deficit which results in slower weight loss.
The bottom line is:
When you deliberately "eat back" your exercise calories you are reinforcing bad habits and unnecessarily setting yourself up for a double dose of human error.
With ZERO benefit.
Exercise should not be used as an excuse to eat more. All you are doing is sabotaging your weight loss efforts and reinforcing the very bad habit of using food as a reward, which quite frankly is one of the big reasons a lot people ended up overweight in the first place.
It is better to set a more modest deficit, exercise consistently and let your exercise calories create a slightly bigger deficit to reach your goals. Thus you eat the same calories every day (building a good routine), you exercise the same amount every day (building a good routine), and if you err by getting "too much" exercise (gasp), you err on the side of slightly faster, yet still very easily sustainable, weight loss...
The sky is not falling.35 -
Actually your method would set up the bad habit and understanding of how weight management works, which MFP is trying to teach (I'll say better than other sites that use TDEE method with exercise included).
Simple lesson most that have gained weight slowly don't realize, hopefully they do later.
When you do more - you should eat more.
When you do less - you should eat less (that's the kicker for most).
In a diet a tad less in either case.
You have now taken your argument to taking a lower than reasonable deficit and adding exercise to create more - then not eating it back.
You've just ended up back at a reasonable deficit.
And why would you think that a person with plenty of fat to burn as energy is going to be exercising in such a way that the fat is actually the main source of energy for the workout - seems to me in that scenario it's likely the workout is intense (unless this is walking for 30 min we are talking about which is whole other scenario) enough for them it was mainly carb burn, not fat.
Shoot, I've seen it referenced that even marathoner's have enough fat on them to run several in a row.
While true purely by numbers - in reality they use a large % of carbs - so that ain't actually going to happen by a long shot - unless they walk them all.
Not sure how your first post and the topic under discussion lead to thinking 500 cal is an aggressive deficit.
For someone 2 lbs away from goal weight, so only in a diet for 2 weeks, even that's not bad for that short of time.
But for someone 50 lbs away, and 1000 is reasonable, and you have another 500 cal workout (easy to hit at that weight) that you are saying don't eat back - that could easily be causing a 40-50% deficit.
That's is the aggressive level you are recommending until your post you dialed it on down to mere 250 deficit + 250 uneaten workout calories.17 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Maybe someone needs to state the obvious, but creating a too large deficit, for example by not eating your exercise calories when you burn a ton of them can lead to lean body mass loss.
<Sigh> I originally had this in the previous post, but took it out because it was getting too lengthy, turns out I should have left it in after all.
Let's compare both approaches with the same deficit goal in mind:
If you set an aggressive dietary deficit of 500 calories, and exercise for an additional 250 calories, then "eat them back", how big of a deficit do you have? Answer: 500 calories, because your net change from exercise is now 0.
Now what happens if you set a more modest dietary deficit of 250 calories, do the same amount of exercise and not eat them back? Answer: Still 500 calories.
Assuming you follow both regimens perfectly*:
You are not "setting too large of a deficit", it is the same deficit.
You are not "losing weight too fast", it is the same rate of weight loss
You do not "lose more lean muscle mass", that is an myth.
You do not "need extra fuel to workout", your overly-abundant body fat is your fuel!
*But people are not perfect are they?
The key difference between these approaches, as several people have already mentioned, most people are bad about over-estimating exercise calories and under-estimating food calories.
People love to "round up" when it comes to the calories burned and guesstimate when it comes time to measure food. The net effect is a is smaller than intended calorie deficit which results in slower weight loss.
The bottom line is:
When you deliberately "eat back" your exercise calories you are reinforcing bad habits and unnecessarily setting yourself up for a double dose of human error.
With ZERO benefit.
Exercise should not be used as an excuse to eat more. All you are doing is sabotaging your weight loss efforts and reinforcing the very bad habit of using food as a reward, which quite frankly is one of the big reasons a lot people ended up overweight in the first place.
It is better to set a more modest deficit, exercise consistently and let your exercise calories create a slightly bigger deficit to reach your goals. Thus you eat the same calories every day (building a good routine), you exercise the same amount every day (building a good routine), and if you err by getting "too much" exercise (gasp), you err on the side of slightly faster, yet still very easily sustainable, weight loss...
The sky is not falling.
This might be an approach for weight loss but what about when you reach your goals and need to maintain? At that point you need to eat back your exercise calories or you will continue to lose. Simply put, exercise is a reason that you have to eat more to properly fuel your bodies needs, regardless of how you decide to look at it. Not only that but your approach only works if you exercise at around the same amount every single day. Sometimes I might only burn 250 calories in a day, others well over 1000.
I believe the most successful approach is to eat back exercise calories from the beginning because I am a firm believer in only making sustainable changes that are life long rather than doing something one way for weight loss and a different way for maintenance. Get in the correct mindset from the beginning.12 -
Actually your method would set up the bad habit and understanding of how weight management works, which MFP is trying to teach (I'll say better than other sites that use TDEE method with exercise included).
Simple lesson most that have gained weight slowly don't realize, hopefully they do later.
When you do more - you should eat more.
When you do less - you should eat less (that's the kicker for most).
In a diet a tad less in either case.
You have now taken your argument to taking a lower than reasonable deficit and adding exercise to create more - then not eating it back.
You've just ended up back at a reasonable deficit.
And why would you think that a person with plenty of fat to burn as energy is going to be exercising in such a way that the fat is actually the main source of energy for the workout - seems to me in that scenario it's likely the workout is intense (unless this is walking for 30 min we are talking about which is whole other scenario) enough for them it was mainly carb burn, not fat.
Shoot, I've seen it referenced that even marathoner's have enough fat on them to run several in a row.
While true purely by numbers - in reality they use a large % of carbs - so that ain't actually going to happen by a long shot - unless they walk them all.
Not sure how your first post and the topic under discussion lead to thinking 500 cal is an aggressive deficit.
For someone 2 lbs away from goal weight, so only in a diet for 2 weeks, even that's not bad for that short of time.
But for someone 50 lbs away, and 1000 is reasonable, and you have another 500 cal workout (easy to hit at that weight) that you are saying don't eat back - that could easily be causing a 40-50% deficit.
That's is the aggressive level you are recommending until your post you dialed it on down to mere 250 deficit + 250 uneaten workout calories.
My argument was already in favor of a reasonable deficit, you read more into it and then promptly started arguing with yourself based on what you thought I said.
The point of that example was to show that there is more than one way to end up at the same calorie deficit and it will not necessarily result in some kind of apocalyptic scenario of dangerously fast weight loss if you simply don't eat your exercise calories back.
So what if you end up with a bigger deficit on days you exercise a little more?
The world is not going to end.
Forget exercise calories, even if you ate nothing at all that day, it is not as if you are not going suddenly starve to death, fall into a coma, and/or start burning muscle tissue as others have wrongly insinuated.
You will simply lose a tiny bit more weight that day.
It is not a big deal.
After all, is that not the goal here?28 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »Actually your method would set up the bad habit and understanding of how weight management works, which MFP is trying to teach (I'll say better than other sites that use TDEE method with exercise included).
Simple lesson most that have gained weight slowly don't realize, hopefully they do later.
When you do more - you should eat more.
When you do less - you should eat less (that's the kicker for most).
In a diet a tad less in either case.
You have now taken your argument to taking a lower than reasonable deficit and adding exercise to create more - then not eating it back.
You've just ended up back at a reasonable deficit.
And why would you think that a person with plenty of fat to burn as energy is going to be exercising in such a way that the fat is actually the main source of energy for the workout - seems to me in that scenario it's likely the workout is intense (unless this is walking for 30 min we are talking about which is whole other scenario) enough for them it was mainly carb burn, not fat.
Shoot, I've seen it referenced that even marathoner's have enough fat on them to run several in a row.
While true purely by numbers - in reality they use a large % of carbs - so that ain't actually going to happen by a long shot - unless they walk them all.
Not sure how your first post and the topic under discussion lead to thinking 500 cal is an aggressive deficit.
For someone 2 lbs away from goal weight, so only in a diet for 2 weeks, even that's not bad for that short of time.
But for someone 50 lbs away, and 1000 is reasonable, and you have another 500 cal workout (easy to hit at that weight) that you are saying don't eat back - that could easily be causing a 40-50% deficit.
That's is the aggressive level you are recommending until your post you dialed it on down to mere 250 deficit + 250 uneaten workout calories.
My argument was already in favor of a reasonable deficit, you read more into it and then promptly started arguing with yourself based on what you thought I said.
The point of that example was to show that there is more than one way to end up at the same calorie deficit and it will not necessarily result in some kind of apocalyptic scenario of dangerously fast weight loss if you simply don't eat your exercise calories back.
So what if you end up with a bigger deficit on days you exercise a little more?
The world is not going to end.
Forget exercise calories, even if you ate nothing at all that day, it is not as if you are not going suddenly starve to death, fall into a coma, and/or start burning muscle tissue as others have wrongly insinuated.
You will simply lose a tiny bit more weight that day.
It is not a big deal.
After all, is that not the goal here?
Your argument was never in favor of a reasonable deficit. You said "Why would you reduce your deficit by eating back exercise calories?"
BECAUSE THAT'S HOW MFP WORKS. YOU TELL IT HOW MUCH YOU WANT TO LOSE PER WEEK AND IT TELLS YOU HOW MUCH YOU NEED TO EAT WITHOUT EXERCISE AND YOU EAT THAT EXERCISE BACK SO YOU DON'T CREATE AN EVEN LARGER DEFICIT THAN YOU PLANNED ON.31 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »Please learn about how MFP works before you give advice on how to use it - you appear to have no idea.
Your eating goal ALREADY has a deficit in it to lose weight. No exercise expected or accounted for.
Deficit is NOT created by exercise and then you eat at maintenance - that is an optional way of doing it - but it's much easier to cut 500 from eating level than to workout 500 calories every day above and beyond what you were going to burn anyway.
OP - MFP is trying to teach a life lesson regarding weight management.
You do more, you eat more (like when you exercise).
You do less, you eat less (like when you become more sedentary during winter).
In a diet a tad less in either case.
So ignore the misunderstood advice above from other poster who doesn't understand how MFP works.
Thank you, but I already fully understand "how it works". What I am saying is that "how it works" is somewhat counterproductive if your goal is to lose weight as quickly as possible.
Bigger deficit = faster weight loss.
Thus, it is better to let your exercise calories create a slightly bigger calorie deficit (in addition to the one already built into the MFP calculation), instead of trying to eat them back.
The amount of calories you are expending through exercise is probably trivial unless you are doing some very high intensity workouts.
Eating back your exercise calories will have one effect, slower weight loss.
Not that hard to comprehend.
But the goal isn't to lose weight as quickly as possible.
The goal is to sustainably and safely lose weight and keep it off.31 -
stanmann571 wrote: »But the goal isn't to lose weight as quickly as possible.
The goal is to sustainably and safely lose weight and keep it off.
Keep reading and come back when you are caught up on the rest of the thread.
25 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »But the goal isn't to lose weight as quickly as possible.
The goal is to sustainably and safely lose weight and keep it off.
Keep reading and come back when you are caught up on the rest of the thread.
My comment stands.
You're obviously confused about how healthy weight loss occurs and how MFP works.
Despite having been provided with detailed explanation and information.
24 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Maybe someone needs to state the obvious, but creating a too large deficit, for example by not eating your exercise calories when you burn a ton of them can lead to lean body mass loss.
<Sigh> I originally had this in the previous post, but took it out because it was getting too lengthy, turns out I should have left it in after all.
Let's compare both approaches with the same deficit goal in mind:
If you set an aggressive dietary deficit of 500 calories, and exercise for an additional 250 calories, then "eat them back", how big of a deficit do you have? Answer: 500 calories, because your net change from exercise is now 0.
Now what happens if you set a more modest dietary deficit of 250 calories, do the same amount of exercise and not eat them back? Answer: Still 500 calories.
Assuming you follow both regimens perfectly*:
You are not "setting too large of a deficit", it is the same deficit.
You are not "losing weight too fast", it is the same rate of weight loss
You do not "lose more lean muscle mass", that is an myth.
You do not "need extra fuel to workout", your overly-abundant body fat is your fuel!
*But people are not perfect are they?
The key difference between these approaches, as several people have already mentioned, most people are bad about over-estimating exercise calories and under-estimating food calories.
People love to "round up" when it comes to the calories burned and guesstimate when it comes time to measure food. The net effect is a is smaller than intended calorie deficit which results in slower weight loss.
The bottom line is:
When you deliberately "eat back" your exercise calories you are reinforcing bad habits and unnecessarily setting yourself up for a double dose of human error.
With ZERO benefit.
Exercise should not be used as an excuse to eat more. All you are doing is sabotaging your weight loss efforts and reinforcing the very bad habit of using food as a reward, which quite frankly is one of the big reasons a lot people ended up overweight in the first place.
It is better to set a more modest deficit, exercise consistently and let your exercise calories create a slightly bigger deficit to reach your goals. Thus you eat the same calories every day (building a good routine), you exercise the same amount every day (building a good routine), and if you err by getting "too much" exercise (gasp), you err on the side of slightly faster, yet still very easily sustainable, weight loss...
The sky is not falling.
If people are estimating poorly, they should be encouraged to estimate more accurately.
If I run a 10K or bike a half century or lift 20,000 lbs over a training session, that effort requires feeding.
It's not a "bonus" or a "benefit" it's a training session.
You're encouraging building the incredibly poor habit of underfeeding training.
How will this benefit a person who has lost 20, 50, 100, 200 lbs and now wants to maintain, but has never bothered to learn how to accurately estimate their training calories? Better to learn proper balance and habits while creating a deficit.
Exercise isn't an "excuse". It's activity that requires feeding.31 -
stanmann571 wrote: »SirSmurfalot wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »But the goal isn't to lose weight as quickly as possible.
The goal is to sustainably and safely lose weight and keep it off.
Keep reading and come back when you are caught up on the rest of the thread.
My comment stands.
You're obviously confused about how healthy weight loss occurs and how MFP works.
Despite having been provided with detailed explanation and information.
Yes, once again I understand how MFP works, but just because MFP uses it does not make it the best way.
You are obviously locked into your dogma and do not care about learning a better method.
That is fine, by all means you do you!
If you want to sabatoge your own weight loss by eating back your exercise calories, that is your choice, but please stop spreading the bad advice to others.
The fact remains that it is completely unnecessary and in fact counter productive to eat your exercise calories in a weight loss scenario.
39 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »SirSmurfalot wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »But the goal isn't to lose weight as quickly as possible.
The goal is to sustainably and safely lose weight and keep it off.
Keep reading and come back when you are caught up on the rest of the thread.
My comment stands.
You're obviously confused about how healthy weight loss occurs and how MFP works.
Despite having been provided with detailed explanation and information.
Yeah, but your explanation and information are wrong!
You are obviously locked into your dogma and do not care about the science or how it actually works in the human body.
If you want to sabatoge your own weight loss by eating back your exercise calories, that is your choice, but please stop spreading the bad advice to others.
It is completely unnecessary and in fact counter productive to eat your exercise calories in a weight loss scenario.
So, if on Day #1 I sit on my rear all day and binge watch Netflix, and on Day #2 I run a marathon, I should eat the same amount of calories both days?!?16 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »SirSmurfalot wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »But the goal isn't to lose weight as quickly as possible.
The goal is to sustainably and safely lose weight and keep it off.
Keep reading and come back when you are caught up on the rest of the thread.
My comment stands.
You're obviously confused about how healthy weight loss occurs and how MFP works.
Despite having been provided with detailed explanation and information.
Yes, once again I understand how MFP works, but just because MFP uses it does not make it the best way.
You are obviously locked into your dogma and do not care about learning a better method.
That is fine, by all means you do you!
If you want to sabatoge your own weight loss by eating back your exercise calories, that is your choice, but please stop spreading the bad advice to others.
The fact remains that it is completely unnecessary and in fact counter productive to eat your exercise calories in a weight loss scenario.
So last month when I ran a 10k. I should have fueled in the same way as Sunday when I watched tv all afternoon12 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »SirSmurfalot wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »But the goal isn't to lose weight as quickly as possible.
The goal is to sustainably and safely lose weight and keep it off.
Keep reading and come back when you are caught up on the rest of the thread.
My comment stands.
You're obviously confused about how healthy weight loss occurs and how MFP works.
Despite having been provided with detailed explanation and information.
Yes, once again I understand how MFP works, but just because MFP uses it does not make it the best way.
You are obviously locked into your dogma and do not care about learning a better method.
That is fine, by all means you do you!
If you want to sabatoge your own weight loss by eating back your exercise calories, that is your choice, but please stop spreading the bad advice to others.
The fact remains that it is completely unnecessary and in fact counter productive to eat your exercise calories in a weight loss scenario.
But, what makes it a better method? Doesn't that depend on what works best for the individual?
The MFP method says that 1+3=4. More traditional TDEE methods say that 2+2=4. They're both getting you to the same calorie target across a week, but they break it out differently. Whether YOU do better eating back your exercise calories or eating the same number of calories isn't for anyone else to say.8 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »SirSmurfalot wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »But the goal isn't to lose weight as quickly as possible.
The goal is to sustainably and safely lose weight and keep it off.
Keep reading and come back when you are caught up on the rest of the thread.
My comment stands.
You're obviously confused about how healthy weight loss occurs and how MFP works.
Despite having been provided with detailed explanation and information.
Yes, once again I understand how MFP works, but just because MFP uses it does not make it the best way.
You are obviously locked into your dogma and do not care about learning a better method.
That is fine, by all means you do you!
If you want to sabatoge your own weight loss by eating back your exercise calories, that is your choice, but please stop spreading the bad advice to others.
The fact remains that it is completely unnecessary and in fact counter productive to eat your exercise calories in a weight loss scenario.
This is hilarious.
Just one person's results but, when I was in weight loss mode, I ate every last exercise calorie I could get my hands on while still in a deficit, and lost 120 lbs. And we're not talking one or two hundred extra calories here either. Soooooooooooo not so counter productive at all, in my opinion.21 -
6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions