"earning" calories through exercise

Should I eat all my calories?

Yes. MFP is already figuring a deficit for you to lose weight. This deficit is based on what you need to eat based on your everyday activity, not counting exercise. In the end, it's all about "net calories" (you can view yours under reports)

Example: you need to eat 2,000 calories to maintain your current weight (random number)
MFP will tell you to eat 1,500 to lose one pound per week (500x7=3500=one pound loss).

Let's say you exercise, and burn 500 additional calories.
UH-OH, now you are at a 1,000 calorie a day deficit. You need 2,000 calories to maintian, are already restricted to 1500, so now your net calories are a 1,000 a day. This is starvation central. Your body, which is very good at keeping you alive, will store and save calories. You WILL stop losing weight. You WILL want to throw your scale out the window.

Eat your exercise calories. At least eat most of them

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/6556-the-answers-to-the-questions


Hope that helps.. U keep up the great work.... Oh I wondered the same thing 2... find this!

I dont believe in eating back the workout calories because everyone tends to under report what we eat and at the same time over report our workout calories

Should I eat all my calories?

Yes. MFP is already figuring a deficit for you to lose weight. This deficit is based on what you need to eat based on your everyday activity, not counting exercise. In the end, it's all about "net calories" (you can view yours under reports)

Example: you need to eat 2,000 calories to maintain your current weight (random number)
MFP will tell you to eat 1,500 to lose one pound per week (500x7=3500=one pound loss).

Let's say you exercise, and burn 500 additional calories.
UH-OH, now you are at a 1,000 calorie a day deficit. You need 2,000 calories to maintian, are already restricted to 1500, so now your net calories are a 1,000 a day. This is starvation central. Your body, which is very good at keeping you alive, will store and save calories. You WILL stop losing weight. You WILL want to throw your scale out the window.

Eat your exercise calories. At least eat most of them

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/6556-the-answers-to-the-questions


Hope that helps.. U keep up the great work.... Oh I wondered the same thing 2... find this!

I dont believe in eating back the workout calories because everyone tends to under report what we eat and at the same time over report our workout calories

While I would agree with you in general, and in terms of people who guess at their calories, many people here are very careful in the amount of calories they log, down to weighing slices of bread and the like rather than depending on the estimate for the weight of a slice of bread on the nutrition information on the bag. These people are not under reporting calories eaten, and many are very careful with the reporting of calories burned as well. While the OP could probably get away without eating their exercise calories while using the calories MFP gives them at this point since it looks by their ticker they have a lot to lose, doing so for a prolonged period of time, especially when getting closer to the final goal, will ultimately be counter productive.

Depending on how much fat a person has to lose, their body will tolerate a certain caloric deficit. The less fat you have to lose, the smaller your caloric deficit should be. By not eating ones exercise calories, or adjusting their calories higher than MFP does, they will move into much to large a deficit. In response their body will slow down fat loss as much as it can. The number of people I have seen post here with that exact problem who then found their weight loss start again after increasing their calories is frankly amazing to me.

In summary, a large deficit for a short period of time will not do this, but a large deficit over a prolonged period of time will. The OP's fat loss will not likely be hurt by eating at least part of their exercise calories long term, but it is likely that over the long term having too large a calorie deficit will hurt his fat loss, resulting in excessive muscle loss.

The number of people I have seen post here with that exact problem who then found their weight loss start again after increasing their calories is frankly amazing to me.

^^This. Because of this I recommend eating back exercise calories...

BUT I think it depends on the individual. There are some people who are also very successful at losing weight with a very large deficit. When I was trying to lose, I almost never ate my exercise calories back and I only ate 1200 calories in food. I did have a day or two a month where I probably ate double or triple that though. I have always credited that to why I never plateaued with such a low calorie intake (as so many seem to do).

As I said, in my first post, most calculations are inaccurate. Eating your exercise calories back or not, doesn't matter, what matters is that you're losing weight at a decent pace, which varies from person to person.

If you're eating your calories back and not losing weight, it's because you just "think" you're in a deficit, you're not in one. If you eat them back and you're losing weight, you're in a deficit. What element determines if you're in a deficit or not? The human element, inaccurate calculations, in accurate calculators, over or underestimating food/exercise caloric balance.

I couldn't agree more. I have been saying this all along. In all the exercise calorie debates, no one hardly ever takes this into account.

"earning" calories through excersize is like painting an armadillo. You can use latex, but Walmart is open 24/7. Does this help?

it is extremely unlikely that anyone reading this will ever get near a true "starvation mode". But, here, people have different ideas of what starvation mode really is. To reach starvation mode requires starting with a low body fat (men 4-5%, women 10%) then severly restricting calories and severe caloric expenditure (exercise), I didnt say it was impossible to enter starvation mode. But the term is thrown around here like a frisbee and can cause false anxiety.

You are confusing starvation mode with anorexia and starvation. Despite sounding similar, they are very different things. Starvation mode is not something a couple of MFP members made up on the forums. It's widely accepted in the weight loss community. Starvation mode is when your body stops losing weight due to not enough calorie intake. It is not anorexia, where your caloric intake is so low that you shed weight that's largely muscle and vital organ weight to compensate. And it's not starvation, which causes delirium and death. People hear starvation mode, and think you're talking about the latter. When in reality, starvation mode is the least severe of the three.

it speeds up metabolism ...

. Good Luck

I eat every single calorie back. It's my motivation to work out every day. I'm getting in better shape AND I get to eat more WHILE still losing the same amount of weight. Win/win/win.

I'm not here to anger people, but I hear the words "starvation mode" gets tossed around this site a lot and for the most part, unless your body fat percentage is in the 4% or lower, I doubt anyone here has really ever reached it. You're body stores fat for energy that's used up when your eating at a deficit. Right now I'm eating below my bmr to lose the last bit of fat, and I have not "reached" starvation mode. I never eat back my calories I burned from working out. Also I'm pushing the same amount of weights that I did when I was eating in excess, I'm not getting stronger from the deficit, but I'm definitely not getting weaker at all. Another thing is when people eat back their workout calories, they tend to overestimate on exactly how many calories they burned. At the end of the day, you probably end up being in surplus instead of a deficit. Eat your allotted daily calories and if you notice you're losing more than a lb a week, then up it a bit by like 50-100 cal a day til you get your numbers right

As far as starvation response goes, it's real. It slows your metabolism down. It has nothing to do with physical strength or body far percentage. It's a hormonal and chemical reaction. Restrict calories too much for an extended amount of time, and your body will adjust your metabolism to compensate and conserve energy. The result is whn you go back to eating at a "normal" caloric level, you end up gaining weight, due to your metabolism being slower.

The starvation response (or starvation mode) doesn't actually wait until you are physically starving to kick in, it's a survival instinct. Also starvation mode is not the same thing as "starvation."

Here is a good read if you have time... http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html

I don't think you understood my post. I never said you'd stop losing weight on a severe caloric restriction. Basically I said what you said. Your metabolism slows beyond what the amount of weight lost would predict (like the Minnesota study showed) so that when you hit your goal, and go to what you think should be maintenance, you end up gaining weight because your maintenance level is actually much lower than it should be, and it takes time to re-regulate and repair. So while yes, eventually your metabolism will return to normal, it takes time, which is why you're supposed to ease yourself back up to maintenance over time, so that by the time you hit your maintenance, your metabolism has up-regulated back to normal.