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
Replies
-
We get that a lot and no. For one I’m a dude and on the east coast. She’s not and is on the left coast.4 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »
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?!?
If you run a marathon on day #2 with no prep, then whatever they feed you in the hospital should be just fine.
19 -
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.
Dropped 106lbs eating back half my exercise calories and keeping the other half as a cushion against inaccuracies. Clearly I suck at self-sabotage...11 -
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 if I eat 1200 calories per day (which is what MFP gives me for my height and age), do a 1 hour kickboxing class, and then an hour of swimming, not eating exercise calories back is fine, in your mind?6 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »Dropped 106lbs eating back half my exercise calories and keeping the other half as a cushion against inaccuracies. Clearly I suck at self-sabotage...
Yes, clearly. You only half-sabotaged yourself and still hit your goal. Congrats.
20 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »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 if I eat 1200 calories per day (which is what MFP gives me for my height and age), do a 1 hour kickboxing class, and then an hour of swimming, not eating exercise calories back is fine, in your mind?
I'm still trying to figure out how I would have gotten through training for multiple half marathons following this advice. I'd have been burning about 500-900 calories on a Sunday long run, only eating 1200...then getting up on Monday and burning another 300-400 or so on a short run, yet only eating 1200...then doing an hour of circuit training on Tuesday and still just eating 1200...on Wednesday I'd probably have blacked out, if I made it that long.14 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »So if I eat 1200 calories per day (which is what MFP gives me for my height and age), do a 1 hour kickboxing class, and then an hour of swimming, not eating exercise calories back is fine, in your mind?
It would depend on a lot of factors (I have no idea what your BMR and dietary deficit is), but assuming your goal is to lose weight and you are not already at a very low body fat you could, strictly speaking, do all that exercise completely fasted if you so desired.
I would not recommend it, but you could, it is not like you would not suddenly starve to death or anything. The human body is surprisingly resilient to things like still having to do physical while not eating very much. Otherwise our ancestors would have died out and we would not be here to talk about it.
You would just run more of a deficit that day, and it would even out in the long run when you have less active days.
Eating back your exercise calories is just a crutch.27 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »So if I eat 1200 calories per day (which is what MFP gives me for my height and age), do a 1 hour kickboxing class, and then an hour of swimming, not eating exercise calories back is fine, in your mind?
It would depend on a lot of factors, but assuming your goal is to lose weight and you are not already at a very low body fat you could, strictly speaking, do all that exercise completely fasted if you so desired. You would not suddenly starve to death or anything.
Eating back your exercise calories is just a crutch.
So, if I didn't want to exercise, you are saying I could just eat 500 calories/day?10 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »So if I eat 1200 calories per day (which is what MFP gives me for my height and age), do a 1 hour kickboxing class, and then an hour of swimming, not eating exercise calories back is fine, in your mind?
It would depend on a lot of factors, but assuming your goal is to lose weight and you are not already at a very low body fat you could, strictly speaking, do all that exercise completely fasted if you so desired. You would not suddenly starve to death or anything.
Eating back your exercise calories is just a crutch.
Except in most peoples' cases, doing that would result in VLCD-esque number of calories a day, which is generally considered unhealthy and unwise to do unless under doctor's supervision. So once again, your advice is ill-advised as a blanket statement. Someone getting so few exercise calories it wouldn't be worth it to eat back any of them, but if someone's on 1200 cal a day, they should absolutely be eating back half of those kickboxing and swimming calories, at least. Otherwise you're talking WAY less than 1200net, when the 1200 already counts a deficit. Unless you don't care about your muscle mass and are content to lose a significant amount of it by the time goal weight arrives.10 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »So, if I didn't want to exercise, you are saying I could just eat 500 calories/day?
I added some more info to clarify, but you had already jumped ahead into argument mode.
For all I know, you could be a midget who is already at ideal weight and 10% body fat, and 500 calories is absolutely perfect for you.
There is no way to reach the conclusion you jumped to on my behalf based on the information presented.
13 -
MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »Except in most peoples' cases, doing that would result in VLCD-esque number of calories a day, which is generally considered unhealthy and unwise to do unless under doctor's supervision. So once again, your advice is ill-advised as a blanket statement. Someone getting so few exercise calories it wouldn't be worth it to eat back any of them, but if someone's on 1200 cal a day, they should absolutely be eating back half of those kickboxing and swimming calories, at least. Otherwise you're talking WAY less than 1200net, when the 1200 already counts a deficit. Unless you don't care about your muscle mass and are content to lose a significant amount of it by the time goal weight arrives.
You are correct, but it was not intended as a blanket statement, it was intended as an example to illustrate a point.
I am simply noting the fact that it can be done, is not necessarily a recommendation that everyone to do it that way.
Apparently that distinction needs to be spelled out with this crowd. You guys love to jump to conclusions.
So let's try again.
The point is, the human body is perfectly capable of doing all that exercise (and more) in a fasted state, but you will run a higher calorie deficit.
It is not a recommendation, it is not a value judgement, it is a statement of fact.
Without jumping to any extra conclusions or putting additional words in my mouth, is there any part of that statement you disagree with?
9 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »Except in most peoples' cases, doing that would result in VLCD-esque number of calories a day, which is generally considered unhealthy and unwise to do unless under doctor's supervision. So once again, your advice is ill-advised as a blanket statement. Someone getting so few exercise calories it wouldn't be worth it to eat back any of them, but if someone's on 1200 cal a day, they should absolutely be eating back half of those kickboxing and swimming calories, at least. Otherwise you're talking WAY less than 1200net, when the 1200 already counts a deficit. Unless you don't care about your muscle mass and are content to lose a significant amount of it by the time goal weight arrives.
You are correct, but it was not intended as a blanket statement.
I am simply noting the fact that it can be done, is not necessarily a recommendation that everyone to do it that way.
Apparently that distinction needs to be spelled out with this crowd. You guys love to jump to conclusions.
So let's try again.
The point is, the human body is perfectly capable of doing all that exercise (and more) in a fasted state, but you will run a higher calorie deficit.
Without jumping to any extra conclusions or putting additional words in my mouth, is there any part of that statement you disagree with?
Except that's exactly what you're advocating. So make up your mind19 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »Except in most peoples' cases, doing that would result in VLCD-esque number of calories a day, which is generally considered unhealthy and unwise to do unless under doctor's supervision. So once again, your advice is ill-advised as a blanket statement. Someone getting so few exercise calories it wouldn't be worth it to eat back any of them, but if someone's on 1200 cal a day, they should absolutely be eating back half of those kickboxing and swimming calories, at least. Otherwise you're talking WAY less than 1200net, when the 1200 already counts a deficit. Unless you don't care about your muscle mass and are content to lose a significant amount of it by the time goal weight arrives.
You are correct, but it was not intended as a blanket statement.
I am simply noting the fact that it can be done, is not necessarily a recommendation that everyone to do it that way.
Apparently that distinction needs to be spelled out with this crowd. You guys love to jump to conclusions.
So let's try again.
The point is, the human body is perfectly capable of doing all that exercise (and more) in a fasted state, but you will run a higher calorie deficit.
It is not a recommendation, it is not a value judgement, it is a statement of fact.
Without jumping to any extra conclusions or putting additional words in my mouth, is there any part of that statement you disagree with?
Sure, a higher deficit is not always a good thing. Also, as one gets closer to their goal weight they're more likely going to want/need to eat back some of their exercise calories. Why wait until later to learn how to do that when you can learn it now? I'd personally like to keep as much of my muscle mass as I can, and so should everyone who embarks on losing weight. A higher deficit defeats that purpose.8 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Except that's exactly what you're advocating. So make up your mind
The problem here is, I am here to discuss, and you are here to argue.
These quotes are from two separate examples, so let's address them in turn.
a) If you exercise in a fasted state, you will run a higher calorie deficit.
If you disagree with this statement, which part do you disagree with?
b) <taken from earlier in the thread>
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.
If you disagree with this statement, which part do you disagree with?
So, do you want to be civil and discuss it like adults, or are you here just to troll and argue?21 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Except that's exactly what you're advocating. So make up your mind
The problem here is, I am here to discuss, and you are here to argue.
These quotes are from two separate examples, so let's address them in turn.
a) If you exercise in a fasted state, you will run a higher calorie deficit.
If you disagree with this statement, which part do you disagree with?
b) <taken from earlier in the thread>
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.
If you disagree with this statement, which part do you disagree with?
So, do you want to be civil and discuss it like adults, or are you here just to troll and argue?
That's rich. You can't make up your mind whether or not it's a good idea to eat exercise calories or not. You're moving the goalposts all over the field and now you accuse me of trolling.
Additionally, you seem to be of the mistaken perception that people who compete in athletic performances can't also have the goal of weight loss. Or not. Some choose to compete in spite of over fat or obese body compositions. Some who have competed for years decide to continue competition while also losing weight. Others decide to start competing despite not yet having met their goal weight. So while the situations may be discrete in your perception. They are in fact substantially overlapping15 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Except that's exactly what you're advocating. So make up your mind
The problem here is, I am here to discuss, and you are here to argue.
These quotes are from two separate examples, so let's address them in turn.
a) If you exercise in a fasted state, you will run a higher calorie deficit.
If you disagree with this statement, which part do you disagree with?
b) <taken from earlier in the thread>
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.
If you disagree with this statement, which part do you disagree with?
So, do you want to be civil and discuss it like adults, or are you here just to troll and argue?
I think that most people would agree with the bolded statement if your ONLY goal/concern is to lose weight. However, I do not want to merely lose weight - I want to lose fat and maintain my muscles (what little I have).8 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Except that's exactly what you're advocating. So make up your mind
The problem here is, I am here to discuss, and you are here to argue.
These quotes are from two separate examples, so let's address them in turn.
a) If you exercise in a fasted state, you will run a higher calorie deficit.
If you disagree with this statement, which part do you disagree with?
b) <taken from earlier in the thread>
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.
If you disagree with this statement, which part do you disagree with?
So, do you want to be civil and discuss it like adults, or are you here just to troll and argue?
Dude, no one is trolling you.
People are trying to explain to you how the NEAT method works and how, when it comes to a calorie deficit, bigger does not always mean better.
You also keep changing your claims every time you post, just enough to "prove" whoever you quoted wrong.
MFP calculates your deficit based off of an estimation of your maintenance calories before exercise, or your "Non Exercise Activity Thermogenesis" (NEAT). If your goal is a 500 calorie deficit and your calorie goal as calculated by MFP is 1500, if you exercise and burn 700 calories and don't eat those calories back, then you've netted 800 calories for the day. This is a very low amount of calories and is not sustainable long term, both in terms of adherence and in terms of health.
Is one day of 800 calories going to hurt you? Probably not. But over time it can definitely lead to nutrient deficiencies and unwanted loss of lean body mass.
The fastest weight loss possible is just not always the best goal to shoot for. We want our weight loss to be sustainable. We want to retain as much LBM as possible. We want to learn that more activity means we can eat more and less activity means we should eat less, and we want to learn how much activity it takes to eat certain amounts of food.
MFP does a really great job helping people learn those things, and has been successful, as is, for many who have used it. One person coming into the forum and swearing that MFP has it all wrong is not going to change that.20 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »I'm not jumping to any conclusions on your behalf. I was trying to clarify your position, since you seem to be having difficulties getting it across. As you've stated in a previous post, the net effect is exactly the same. Whether I consume 500 calories and not move that day, or if I consume 1200 calories and then exercise 700 calories worth. Same thing.
Over the course of one day, that's not likely going to be a problem. Overtime, it's going to be an issue for many different reasons, including malnutrition, unnecessary muscle wastage, plus a myriad of potential health issues. Your first post mentions losing weight as quickly as possible, and then in subsequent posts you claim to be advocating for a "reasonable" deficit. At what point are you differentiating between the two, because you don't seem to understand what "reasonable" is.
Let me try it from another angle, pull everything together in one spot and (hopefully) clarify, but this is going to be the last shot, as I am tired of repeating myself.
I am talking about an average person trying to lose weight, not body builders, high performance athletes, people with a very low body fat, people training for a marathon, and/or any of the other high intensity exercises people have tried to use as counter examples... even though I have been very clear that I am talking about an average person in a weight loss scenario.
Think overweight middle-aged guy/gal on a treadmill, not Michael Phelps.
All I am trying to get across here is this:
It would be preferable to set a more modest dietary calorie deficit (whatever that means for your height/weight/gender/body type, etc.) and make the effort to exercise up to your desired calorie deficit.
Instead of setting an aggressive dietary calorie deficit (whatever that means for your height/weight/gender/body type, etc.) and then trying to eat your exercise calories to get down to the desired deficit.
One reason I suggest his is because, as several others 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.
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.
The nominal amount of exercise the average person does 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.
Doing this will not cause "too large of a deficit",
They will not "lose weight too fast",
They will not "lose more lean muscle mass",
They do not "need extra fuel to workout",
Why?
Because they already have plenty of extra "fuel" to burn in the form of body fat!
Which is why I keep saying they do not need to eat their exercise calories.
If that is too much to ask, then try only eating half your calories, as some have suggested. That will at the very least help with the estimation errors.
Again, 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. I am not talking about you.
This is directed at the average person trying to lose weight.
The average person is not training to run a marathon,
The average person is not cycling 50 miles per day,
The average person is not lifting 10 tons per day in weight training.
If you do all that, congrats!... but you are not the target audience for this advice.nutmegoreo wrote: »These abuse flags are entertaining me. They are intended for blatant abuse such as pornography, not disagreements. If you feels someone is attacking others, then report and let the mods sort it out. The abuse flags do nothing.
I agree, someone went and flagged basically everything I wrote in the thread because they disagree with what I am saying.
15 -
MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »Sure, a higher deficit is not always a good thing. Also, as one gets closer to their goal weight they're more likely going to want/need to eat back some of their exercise calories. Why wait until later to learn how to do that when you can learn it now? I'd personally like to keep as much of my muscle mass as I can, and so should everyone who embarks on losing weight. A higher deficit defeats that purpose.
You are correct, a higher deficit is not always good. That is a fair point, which I just addressed in the previous post, but the short version is, we are not talking about a larger deficit so much as the approach to reaching the same deficit.
As you get closer to your goal, you should adjust your goals and setting, if you are no longer "sedentary" for example, you should change your activity level, that will change the calculations used in MFP, that will raise your calorie budget as you get closer to a maintenance weight.
Doing this way vs that way will not effect your muscle mass one way or another. As I have explained previously, your muscle tissue is highly conserved, it is not going to just waste away unless you are in a state of prolonged and severe starvation.
We are talking about a "war crime" level of starving here, not "I skipped breakfast".
Again, the deficit here is not that severe.11 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »I'm not jumping to any conclusions on your behalf. I was trying to clarify your position, since you seem to be having difficulties getting it across. As you've stated in a previous post, the net effect is exactly the same. Whether I consume 500 calories and not move that day, or if I consume 1200 calories and then exercise 700 calories worth. Same thing.
Over the course of one day, that's not likely going to be a problem. Overtime, it's going to be an issue for many different reasons, including malnutrition, unnecessary muscle wastage, plus a myriad of potential health issues. Your first post mentions losing weight as quickly as possible, and then in subsequent posts you claim to be advocating for a "reasonable" deficit. At what point are you differentiating between the two, because you don't seem to understand what "reasonable" is.
Let me try it from another angle, pull everything together in one spot and (hopefully) clarify, but this is going to be the last shot, as I am tired of repeating myself.
I am talking about an average person trying to lose weight, not body builders, high performance athletes, people with a very low body fat, people training for a marathon, and/or any of the other high intensity exercises people have tried to use as counter examples... even though I have been very clear that I am talking about an average person in a weight loss scenario.
Think overweight middle-aged guy/gal on a treadmill, not Michael Phelps.
All I am trying to get across here is this:
It would be preferable to set a more modest dietary calorie deficit (whatever that means for your height/weight/gender/body type, etc.) and make the effort to exercise up to your desired calorie deficit.
Instead of setting an aggressive dietary calorie deficit (whatever that means for your height/weight/gender/body type, etc.) and then trying to eat your exercise calories to get down to the desired deficit.
One reason I suggest his is because, as several others 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.
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.
The nominal amount of exercise the average person does 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.
Doing this will not cause "too large of a deficit",
They will not "lose weight too fast",
They will not "lose more lean muscle mass",
They do not "need extra fuel to workout",
Why?
Because they already have plenty of extra "fuel" to burn in the form of body fat!
Which is why I keep saying they do not need to eat their exercise calories.
If that is too much to ask, then try only eating half your calories, as some have suggested. That will at the very least help with the estimation errors.
Again, 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. I am not talking about you.
This is directed at the average person trying to lose weight.
The average person is not training to run a marathon,
The average person is not cycling 50 miles per day,
The average person is not lifting 10 tons per day in weight training.
If you do all that, congrats!... but you are not the target audience for this advice.nutmegoreo wrote: »These abuse flags are entertaining me. They are intended for blatant abuse such as pornography, not disagreements. If you feels someone is attacking others, then report and let the mods sort it out. The abuse flags do nothing.
I agree, someone went and flagged basically everything I wrote in the thread because they disagree with what I am saying.
The people who have disagreed with you in this thread are also talking about average people trying to lose weight. If that overweight person on a treadmill is using MFP, then their calorie goal is based off of NEAT and they should be eating at least some of those exercise calories back.
If you are worried about inaccurate logging, then perhaps suggesting that they strive to log more accurately is a better strategy than advising them to eat a huge deficit.12 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »I'm not jumping to any conclusions on your behalf. I was trying to clarify your position, since you seem to be having difficulties getting it across. As you've stated in a previous post, the net effect is exactly the same. Whether I consume 500 calories and not move that day, or if I consume 1200 calories and then exercise 700 calories worth. Same thing.
Over the course of one day, that's not likely going to be a problem. Overtime, it's going to be an issue for many different reasons, including malnutrition, unnecessary muscle wastage, plus a myriad of potential health issues. Your first post mentions losing weight as quickly as possible, and then in subsequent posts you claim to be advocating for a "reasonable" deficit. At what point are you differentiating between the two, because you don't seem to understand what "reasonable" is.
Let me try it from another angle, pull everything together in one spot and (hopefully) clarify, but this is going to be the last shot, as I am tired of repeating myself.
I am talking about an average person trying to lose weight, not body builders, high performance athletes, people with a very low body fat, people training for a marathon, and/or any of the other high intensity exercises people have tried to use as counter examples... even though I have been very clear that I am talking about an average person in a weight loss scenario.
Think overweight middle-aged guy/gal on a treadmill, not Michael Phelps.
All I am trying to get across here is this:
It would be preferable to set a more modest dietary calorie deficit (whatever that means for your height/weight/gender/body type, etc.) and make the effort to exercise up to your desired calorie deficit.
Instead of setting an aggressive dietary calorie deficit (whatever that means for your height/weight/gender/body type, etc.) and then trying to eat your exercise calories to get down to the desired deficit.
One reason I suggest his is because, as several others 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.
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.
The nominal amount of exercise the average person does 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.
Doing this will not cause "too large of a deficit",
They will not "lose weight too fast",
They will not "lose more lean muscle mass",
They do not "need extra fuel to workout",
Why?
Because they already have plenty of extra "fuel" to burn in the form of body fat!
Which is why I keep saying they do not need to eat their exercise calories.
If that is too much to ask, then try only eating half your calories, as some have suggested. That will at the very least help with the estimation errors.
Again, 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. I am not talking about you.
This is directed at the average person trying to lose weight.
The average person is not training to run a marathon,
The average person is not cycling 50 miles per day,
The average person is not lifting 10 tons per day in weight training.
If you do all that, congrats!... but you are not the target audience for this advice.nutmegoreo wrote: »These abuse flags are entertaining me. They are intended for blatant abuse such as pornography, not disagreements. If you feels someone is attacking others, then report and let the mods sort it out. The abuse flags do nothing.
I agree, someone went and flagged basically everything I wrote in the thread because they disagree with what I am saying.
Except that all of your “exceptions” are people who show up on these forums every day confused because they’re following your plan instead of the program as designed. And they hav low energy and their training is suffering
Diet for weight loss
Train for fitness.
Your low opinion of those who are seeking to lose weight is blinding you to what good advice looks like.
If someone is making bad estimates of food or exercise. We don’t pat them all n the head and say keep making bad estimates. We show them how to make better estimates.16 -
stanmann571 wrote: »That's rich. You can't make up your mind whether or not it's a good idea to eat exercise calories or not. You're moving the goalposts all over the field and now you accuse me of trolling.
Additionally, you seem to be of the mistaken perception that people who compete in athletic performances can't also have the goal of weight loss. Or not. Some choose to compete in spite of over fat or obese body compositions. Some who have competed for years decide to continue competition while also losing weight. Others decide to start competing despite not yet having met their goal weight. So while the situations may be discrete in your perception. They are in fact substantially overlapping
It is not my problem that you failed to read the earlier posts before jumping into the thread.
If you are a competitive athlete, then feel free to ignore my suggestions, since they were not directed toward you in the first place.
There, you are off the hook, you can quit arguing now.15 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »Sure, a higher deficit is not always a good thing. Also, as one gets closer to their goal weight they're more likely going to want/need to eat back some of their exercise calories. Why wait until later to learn how to do that when you can learn it now? I'd personally like to keep as much of my muscle mass as I can, and so should everyone who embarks on losing weight. A higher deficit defeats that purpose.
You are correct, a higher deficit is not always good. That is a fair point, which I just addressed in the previous post, but the short version is, we are not talking about a larger deficit so much as the approach to reaching the same deficit.
As you get closer to your goal, you should adjust your goals and setting, if you are no longer "sedentary" for example, you should change your activity level, that will change the calculations used in MFP, that will raise your calorie budget as you get closer to a maintenance weight.
Doing this way vs that way will not effect your muscle mass one way or another. As I have explained previously, your muscle tissue is highly conserved, it is not going to just waste away unless you are in a state of prolonged and severe starvation.
We are talking about a "war crime" level of starving here, not "I skipped breakfast".
Again, the deficit here is not that severe.
You went from this: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.
To this:You are correct, a higher deficit is not always good. That is a fair point, which I just addressed in the previous post, but the short version is, we are not talking about a larger deficit so much as the approach to reaching the same deficit.
You keep flip-flopping your claims all over the place yet you're "not here to argue" (your words from a previous post).
So what is it? Bigger deficit is better or bigger deficit isn't always better?16 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »You went from this: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.
To this:You are correct, a higher deficit is not always good. That is a fair point, which I just addressed in the previous post, but the short version is, we are not talking about a larger deficit so much as the approach to reaching the same deficit.
You keep flip-flopping your claims all over the place yet you're "not here to argue" (your words from a previous post).
So what is it? Bigger deficit is better or bigger deficit isn't always better?
Well for one thing you completely omitted the context for those statements, and I was talking to two different people about two different things.
But regardless, these statements do not contradict each other.
"Bigger deficit = faster weight loss."
This is a factual statement, not an opinion, not a value judgement. It is true no matter who says it.
"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."
This statement was in response to someone explaining NEAT, I was suggesting that not eating your calories back would create a slightly bigger calorie deficit (which it will), and that is not necessarily a bad thing for someone trying to lose weight (which it is not).
Note the part where I say, "a slightly bigger calorie deficit".
I am talking about an hour on the treadmill, not running a marathon.
I am not suggesting a massive calorie deficit as some people seem to assume, and I am not suggesting you starve yourself to the point your muscles waste away as others have assumed.
"a slightly bigger calorie deficit".
Next part:
"You are correct, a higher deficit is not always good. That is a fair point, which I just addressed in the previous post, but the short version is, we are not talking about a larger deficit so much as the approach to reaching the same deficit."
Ironically, I cannot even agree with you guys without sparking another argument.
All I am doing here is acknowledging, "Yes, there is such a thing as too big of a deficit", but that does not contradict my earlier notion that a slightly bigger calorie deficit can be a good thing.
Here again, you left out the context from the previous post were I explained what I meant...You can go back and read that (or not) as you see fit.
Suffice it to say, there is a whole lot of leeway between "slightly bigger" and "too big".
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
Ok, your turn.
So what’s it gonna be, huh? Long sullen silence, or mean comment?14 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »MichelleSilverleaf wrote: »Except in most peoples' cases, doing that would result in VLCD-esque number of calories a day, which is generally considered unhealthy and unwise to do unless under doctor's supervision. So once again, your advice is ill-advised as a blanket statement. Someone getting so few exercise calories it wouldn't be worth it to eat back any of them, but if someone's on 1200 cal a day, they should absolutely be eating back half of those kickboxing and swimming calories, at least. Otherwise you're talking WAY less than 1200net, when the 1200 already counts a deficit. Unless you don't care about your muscle mass and are content to lose a significant amount of it by the time goal weight arrives.
You are correct, but it was not intended as a blanket statement, it was intended as an example to illustrate a point.
I am simply noting the fact that it can be done, is not necessarily a recommendation that everyone to do it that way.
Apparently that distinction needs to be spelled out with this crowd. You guys love to jump to conclusions.
So let's try again.
The point is, the human body is perfectly capable of doing all that exercise (and more) in a fasted state, but you will run a higher calorie deficit.
It is not a recommendation, it is not a value judgement, it is a statement of fact.
Without jumping to any extra conclusions or putting additional words in my mouth, is there any part of that statement you disagree with?
Where does this inclusion and confusion of fasted state come into this discussion?
Where did fasted have to do with any of this!
I hope you aren't fasted after a workout running a deep deficit attempting to discuss this topic - because frankly it's not working well.
Sure you could do those things fasted. I come home after work, lift lower body, and then do a 2 hr hard bike ride with some good hills - fasted from last eating prior night probably 1 am.
What does fasted workouts have to do with advocating easily close to 50% deficit as a good idea?
I may be fasted, and I may allow a slightly larger deficit on that day, but I also know what I'm doing and wouldn't recommend it just blanket to someone else unless I knew a whole lot more about their situation and ability.
But I'm still eating back most of those workout calories - because I want to recover well from the workout - and be able to do another good one. Shoot, I know the one I did was likely not as good as if I did a snack first.
And what does doing the workout in a fasted state have to do with running a higher calorie deficit - for just that statement we are supposed to agree or disagree with.
Why must one run a higher calorie deficit if doing the workout fasted?
Disagree BTW.6 -
Dear Posters,
1. Please only use the spam or abuse flags for bot style spam, or extremely inappropriate content (think pornographic images or something similar) not just posts you do not like. If you would like more guidance it can be found here: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10007789/flagged-content-reported-posts-warning-points#latest
2. I am asking you again to please start a debate thread if you find yourself in disagreement with another member in a help thread. Please keep the help threads focused on the person seeking help.
Thanks,
4legs
MFP moderator0 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »You went from this: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.
To this:You are correct, a higher deficit is not always good. That is a fair point, which I just addressed in the previous post, but the short version is, we are not talking about a larger deficit so much as the approach to reaching the same deficit.
You keep flip-flopping your claims all over the place yet you're "not here to argue" (your words from a previous post).
So what is it? Bigger deficit is better or bigger deficit isn't always better?
Well for one thing you completely omitted the context for those statements, and I was talking to two different people about two different things.
But regardless, these statements do not contradict each other.
"Bigger deficit = faster weight loss."
This is a factual statement, not an opinion, not a value judgement. It is true no matter who says it.
"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."
This statement was in response to someone explaining NEAT, I was suggesting that not eating your calories back would create a slightly bigger calorie deficit (which it will), and that is not necessarily a bad thing for someone trying to lose weight (which it is not).
Note the part where I say, "a slightly bigger calorie deficit".
I am talking about an hour on the treadmill, not running a marathon.
I am not suggesting a massive calorie deficit as some people seem to assume, and I am not suggesting you starve yourself to the point your muscles waste away as others have assumed.
"a slightly bigger calorie deficit".
Next part:
"You are correct, a higher deficit is not always good. That is a fair point, which I just addressed in the previous post, but the short version is, we are not talking about a larger deficit so much as the approach to reaching the same deficit."
Ironically, I cannot even agree with you guys without sparking another argument.
All I am doing here is acknowledging, "Yes, there is such a thing as too big of a deficit", but that does not contradict my earlier notion that a slightly bigger calorie deficit can be a good thing.
Here again, you left out the context from the previous post were I explained what I meant...You can go back and read that (or not) as you see fit.
Suffice it to say, there is a whole lot of leeway between "slightly bigger" and "too big".
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
Ok, your turn.
So what’s it gonna be, huh? Long sullen silence, or mean comment?
If you want a particular deficit,
1. Determine what deficit is desired.
2. Set that deficit, log accurately, and maintain that deficit.
It's really not complicated.
You seem to want to overly complicate matters, because you believe people are too stupid to learn to log and estimate consistently and accurately.8 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »
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?!?
If you run a marathon on day #2 with no prep, then whatever they feed you in the hospital should be just fine.
Nice try on dodging the question.
Rest day the day before a marathon makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is not eating back exercise calories.6 -
SirSmurfalot wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »You went from this: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.
To this:You are correct, a higher deficit is not always good. That is a fair point, which I just addressed in the previous post, but the short version is, we are not talking about a larger deficit so much as the approach to reaching the same deficit.
You keep flip-flopping your claims all over the place yet you're "not here to argue" (your words from a previous post).
So what is it? Bigger deficit is better or bigger deficit isn't always better?
Well for one thing you completely omitted the context for those statements, and I was talking to two different people about two different things.
But regardless, these statements do not contradict each other.
"Bigger deficit = faster weight loss."
This is a factual statement, not an opinion, not a value judgement. It is true no matter who says it.
"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."
This statement was in response to someone explaining NEAT, I was suggesting that not eating your calories back would create a slightly bigger calorie deficit (which it will), and that is not necessarily a bad thing for someone trying to lose weight (which it is not).
Note the part where I say, "a slightly bigger calorie deficit".
I am talking about an hour on the treadmill, not running a marathon.
I am not suggesting a massive calorie deficit as some people seem to assume, and I am not suggesting you starve yourself to the point your muscles waste away as others have assumed.
"a slightly bigger calorie deficit".
Next part:
"You are correct, a higher deficit is not always good. That is a fair point, which I just addressed in the previous post, but the short version is, we are not talking about a larger deficit so much as the approach to reaching the same deficit."
Ironically, I cannot even agree with you guys without sparking another argument.
All I am doing here is acknowledging, "Yes, there is such a thing as too big of a deficit", but that does not contradict my earlier notion that a slightly bigger calorie deficit can be a good thing.
Here again, you left out the context from the previous post were I explained what I meant...You can go back and read that (or not) as you see fit.
Suffice it to say, there is a whole lot of leeway between "slightly bigger" and "too big".
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
Ok, your turn.
So what’s it gonna be, huh? Long sullen silence, or mean comment?
Where has anyone said "mean comments" to you?
I didn't include your context because it was unnecessary. You've just been changing your statements slightly each time you comment to fit your narrative according to who you're responding to. I was just trying to get some clarification.
If one is using the NEAT method, then not eating back exercise calories for a "slightly bigger deficit" is not ideal. It sounds like you are confusing two separate approaches to weight loss. Upping your calorie goal with the idea of not eating calories burned from exercise is an entirely different approach to weight loss than NEAT - it's much closer to the TDEE method. Which is fine for people whose activity doesn't vary much from day to day, but if one prefers to use NEAT and eat back exercise calories, that works just as well if not better for some people and is not inferior to your method.
Some of us don't exercise consistently other than our normal daily activities. If I have a week, for example, where I'm just going to work, then doing housework and other daily living activities, then I'm going to eat less than the weeks I'm training for a 10K because I require less energy on those lower activity days. This is where MFP's method comes in handy, because it allows me to run a consistent deficit every day no matter what my activity level is.
Again, not everyone wants or needs to lose weight more quickly with a bigger deficit. It may not make sense to you, but you have to remember that people have different goals and expectations when it comes to fitness and weight loss.5 -
This would likely be received as high praise from both.
...and yes - I suspect these two were separated at birth.1
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