Why Eating Exercise Calories is so important.

Just curious if anyone knows... Do the MFP developers agree 100% with this approach?

The main reason I ask, if you end a day with less than 1200 calories, it yells at you and says your not eating enough. If you take that same day and eat 1500, but exercise for 1000, it doesnt complain or warn you that your in 'starvation mode' because you didnt eat back your exercise calories.

I'm not challenging the OP, just curious if there is agreement or if this just isn't a feature thats built into the software. Also, when they do the biggest looser type shows, why dont they have them eat back their calories? If they did, I would assume they should only be dropping 1-2 lbs a week right?

Right I think when people say, "you can't eat that low calories because your body needs fuel", I don't think they really know what they are talking about. They fail to realize that fat stores provide fuel. The body of course can't fuel 100% of its energy needs with fat because the brain needs glucose, which can come from carbs, protein, or in the absence of adequate carbs could be partially substituted with ketones. So they assume everyone is going to go into starvation mode after a week of dieting on a very low calorie diet, but really it depends on how much fat they have available and also whether they eat adequate protein.

But what you are also neglecting is the fact that the body will break down muscle for energy before it does fat. Eating enough calories to stay at a reasonable deficit combined with an adequate protein intake that accounts for 1g-1.5g per pound of LBM ensures that muscle breakdown is at its lowest when losing weight. (The more LBM you have at the end of your journey, the better you'll look. This is why you shouldn't go for more than two pounds of weight loss a week.)


On a different note, when it comes to calorie deficits, people aren't paying attention to the fact that when dieting you've already created a deficit before including exercise. It's not the end of the world if you're under your net amount every now and then, but repeatedly missing the mark day in and day out will most likely throw you into starvation mode within a short amount of time.

It is important to understand that exercise calorie estimates are often too high and also that the idea that people can easily put themselves in "starvation mode" has been challenged. Food calorie information, even that provided by the companies, is often too low. Companies are permitted to underestimate the amount of calories by as much as 20%.

People should monitor their food consumption and their exercise and see what's working. If you automatically eat the amount of calories a program says you've "earned" you may be undermining your weight loss efforts.

Just curious if anyone knows... Do the MFP developers agree 100% with this approach?

The main reason I ask, if you end a day with less than 1200 calories, it yells at you and says your not eating enough. If you take that same day and eat 1500, but exercise for 1000, it doesnt complain or warn you that your in 'starvation mode' because you didnt eat back your exercise calories.

I'm not challenging the OP, just curious if there is agreement or if this just isn't a feature thats built into the software. Also, when they do the biggest looser type shows, why dont they have them eat back their calories? If they did, I would assume they should only be dropping 1-2 lbs a week right?

Right I think when people say, "you can't eat that low calories because your body needs fuel", I don't think they really know what they are talking about. They fail to realize that fat stores provide fuel. The body of course can't fuel 100% of its energy needs with fat because the brain needs glucose, which can come from carbs, protein, or in the absence of adequate carbs could be partially substituted with ketones. So they assume everyone is going to go into starvation mode after a week of dieting on a very low calorie diet, but really it depends on how much fat they have available and also whether they eat adequate protein.

But what you are also neglecting is the fact that the body will break down muscle for energy before it does fat. Eating enough calories to stay at a reasonable deficit combined with an adequate protein intake that accounts for 1g-1.5g per pound of LBM ensures that muscle breakdown is at its lowest when losing weight. (The more LBM you have at the end of your journey, the better you'll look. This is why you shouldn't go for more than two pounds of weight loss a week.)


On a different note, when it comes to calorie deficits, people aren't paying attention to the fact that when dieting you've already created a deficit before including exercise. It's not the end of the world if you're under your net amount every now and then, but repeatedly missing the mark day in and day out will most likely throw you into starvation mode within a short amount of time.

I find it suspicious that people on MFP are able to do endless amounts of exercise without burning any calories. Biggest Loser contestants don't go into starvation mode, yet they are in enormous caloric deficits for months at a time. But yes I agree there is a point where fat oxidation cannot keep up with the daily energy demands, so muscle starts to be burned. But its still very dependent on the size of the fat stores of the individual. Never will you see an obese person who has lost little to no weight and jumps right into starvation mode because they set their calorie intake too low.

I have been eating right and exercising 3 to 6 days a week for a month now and I have only lost 5 pounds all though i have lost inches, I am now wondering if I am not eating enough calories. I eat my BMR amount . Which is 1421 a day. Should I up my Calorie intake and how do I really know how much to eat?

I read this 3 times, and I don't understand it at all. But, I'm pretty sure I've been doing it wrong.

I don't understand what "net calories" means.

What I do, is lets say I get 1800 to eat. Then, I do 400 calories for my workout. I eat 2200 calories. That's it. Is that what you mean, or no?

If you eat 2200 and you exercise 400, then your net is 1800.

I know, but what does that mean? So, what? Is the suggestion was that your net should be what your goal is?

I mean, all net is is the amount I eat less exercise. So, really, all anyone is saying is to eat back your exercise cals? Or am I missing something. It seems like it is really easy and people confuse it and make it sound more complicated than it is, and I can't understand why they keep doing that.

If my goal is to eat 1800. And, I exercise and burn 400, than I should eat 2200? If I don't eat my 400 exercise cals, then if I eat 1800, my net will be 1400. It's just a weird twisted way to look at it and I cna't wrap my head around why people look at it that way.

<snip>

One major point you are missing here - the people on The BIggest Loser are morbidly obese, and they generally have enough fat stores to use muscle before fat. <snip>

I'm thinking you have a typo here. They would be using fat before muscle, yes?

<snip>

One major point you are missing here - the people on The BIggest Loser are morbidly obese, and they generally have enough fat stores to use muscle before fat. <snip>

I'm thinking you have a typo here. They would be using fat before muscle, yes?

Totally - thanks for picking that up - going back to correct it now

EDIT: Whoops - tried to edit and cannot.