More KJ's allowed for exercising

Options
Ellenraedunning
Ellenraedunning Posts: 1 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Just wondering if anyone else feels like it's great you can eat more if you exercise - but I find, even though I still lose weight, it's a lot slower than just reducing KJ intake down to the minimum and not exercising. Basically if only eating KJ allowance there's no energy for exercise anyway, and have to go to bed early with tummy grumbling all night. Exercising is def better, not so hungry, but annoying weight loss is slower. Anyone else the same?

Replies

  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 17,959 Member
    Options
    I find that the amount of calories/kjs added by MFP or wearables for exercise is grossly overblown. I'm sure if I ate back everything my Samsung watch added, I'd stop losing all together! But I definitely eat some back and have success.
  • Retroguy2000
    Retroguy2000 Posts: 1,514 Member
    Options
    Yes, the question is whether your estimates for your net workout calories are accurate.

    Also, you may be adding some muscle.
  • Lietchi
    Lietchi Posts: 6,114 Member
    Options
    Personally, I'd rather go slow than 'suffer'... Time will pass anyway, and at least the risk is lower of giving up and gaining back the lost weight.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,249 Member
    edited October 2022
    Options
    Exercise is for health and fitness, weight loss is the result of consuming fewer calories or KJs than you consume.

    To me maintaining a level of fitness that will allow me to participate in triathlons and running races is more important than the number on a scale (yes, I'm definitely a chubby runner but I suppose the extra buoyancy is good for swimming). I also recognize that my running speed would most likely improve if I lost some more weight.

    It's also worth keeping in mind that you want to develop healthy eating habits that are sustainable in the long term. It's not unusual for excessive caloric restriction to result in yo-yo dieting rather than maintaining a healthy weight in the long term.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,145 Member
    Options
    Ellenraedunning wrote: »
    Just wondering if anyone else feels like it's great you can eat more if you exercise - but I find, even though I still lose weight, it's a lot slower than just reducing KJ intake down to the minimum and not exercising. Basically if only eating KJ allowance there's no energy for exercise anyway, and have to go to bed early with tummy grumbling all night. Exercising is def better, not so hungry, but annoying weight loss is slower. Anyone else the same?

    I'm not. As far as I've observed, I lose weight at roughly the same rate, whether exercising and eating the estimated calories back, or not exercising at all . . . on average over a few weeks, the only sensible way to assess that.

    I'm pretty sure there's a personalized sweet spot for everyone, a good balance of exercise and calorie intake/nutrition. I'd bet that sweet spot differs for each person.

    Eating too little (for fast loss) tanks energy, so we can lose slower through moving less (perhaps subtly). Sub-ideal nutrient intake can contribute to that lassitude - even too little of some nutrient(s) in absolute amounts, even if the right relative percentages.

    Exercising too much for one's current fitness level can do the same, by bleeding calorie burn out of daily life (resting more, again perhaps subtly). That can be any combination of excess frequency, duration, intensity or exercise type.

    (Of course it's important to estimate one's exercise calories within reasonable approximation of reality, too - not always easy. And some people do find that certain exercises can spike or quell appetite, too - also pretty individual, seems like.)

    For many people, misery isn't an essential part of weight management or fitness, IMO . . . but it can take some attentive experimenting to find the right personal balance. Some people do struggle more, though.

Categories