Why Eating Exercise Calories is so important.
Replies
-
lots of "myths" floating around in this thread...
if you want to know what's what go to alan aragorns page and he'll set you straight...
at the end of the day calories out > calories in you will lose weight...
having said that, everyone on a weight loss plan should also be involved in a weight resistance traning program which totally bunks the whole "OMG i'm burning all my muscle and no fat" myth... and you should be making sure you are getting ample protien in your diet from multiple sources...
dude, I like your thinking and I personally think that "eating back your exercise calories" is wrong, but I still do not understand if it is true or not that your body burns/eats muscles FIRST and then the fat , as the other people are saying?
So according to this logic, all those biggest loser people are coming back home without any muscles on them, still loaded to the rim with all those glorious fats ?
They are on recommended 1000 to 1750 cal diets in there
Further to that, their hearts must surely be damaged beyond control?
And one more thing, regarding healthy , fit people versus obese , fat people,
there must be different rules for different bodies?
Im obese (used to be
) , and I have around 50 more lb to lose,
surely, my metabolism and daily activities will not bypass all the lovely fat that I have and go directly for my calf muscles, or my heart or my biceps to feed itself?
I know Im being a bit cheeky here, but can anyone explain this?
If you already have a deficit biut into your target how can eating back your calories be wrong? You are just making sure that you do not create too large a deficit. I have not re-read the thread, but cannot recall someone making a sweeping statement that muscle is burnt before fat. The issue is, creating a very large deficit regularly, makes it more likely for the weight loss to be higher % of muscle than it would be if you have a smaller deficit. Morbidly obese people do not have the issue that other folks do as there is enough fat stores not to have to dip into the muscle at all - actually, its the ideal time to try to build muscle.
I think this was already explained.
yes, I was asking questions regarding fat, obese people
OP states this:
"Over the same period of time, Jane's body will respond to the huge caloric defecit and try to preserve the body, by burning Jane's muscle rather than her fat. The number on the scale drops, but Jane does not seem to get any skinnier. "
this is what is not explained and what I was aiming at
If Jane is obese, as most of us are, why would her muscle get burned before fat? even with huge caloric deficit? I get the fact that some % of muscle is getting burned but the OP states that in huge deficits, somehow, muscle gets burned before fat?
we see these kinds of things (huge caloric deficits) all the time on biggest loser and other weight losing shows?0 -
yes, I was asking questions regarding fat, obese people
OP states this:
"Over the same period of time, Jane's body will respond to the huge caloric defecit and try to preserve the body, by burning Jane's muscle rather than her fat. The number on the scale drops, but Jane does not seem to get any skinnier. "
this is what is not explained and what I was aiming at
If Jane is obese, as most of us are, why would her muscle get burned before fat? even with huge caloric deficit? I get the fact that some % of muscle is getting burned but the OP states that in huge deficits, somehow, muscle gets burned before fat?
we see these kinds of things (huge caloric deficits) all the time on biggest loser and other weight losing shows?
Whenever one is dieting, there are three things that are lost ... a combination of fat, water, and muscle. Typically, as long as one eats above their BMR, they are going to be targeting much more fat than muscle. Once we dip below that BMR, we end up in a situation where we start losing muscle in greater quantity. The more extreme the diet or calorie deficit, the more muscle will be impacted by the dieting.
In other words, stay above your BMR in your dieting, while making sure that calories in < calories out and you will lose weight ... with a larger percentage of the weight loss coming from fat/water loss. When we dip below that BMR, we can still lose weight although 1) the percentage of loss including muscle is greater and 2) we ultimately can slow our metabolism making weight loss drop off dramatically.
With regard to why people on the biggest loser type shows don't lose all of their muscle before their fat is two-fold. First, we burn off combinations of fat/muscle/water as we have the calorie deficit. The larger the deficit the more likely that muscle will be a larger component of the loss. Second, in those biggest loser shows, most of the workouts including some factoring of weight training in them. As such, the weight training helps to build muscle to replace that which is being lost by the dieting. By contrast, because the idea behind dieting is to cause a net loss in fat, if we are staying below out calorie output with regard to our calorie intake, again depending where we are across the scale of how much caloric loss we have compared to BMR, we won't be "replacing" the fat. As such, the weight training regimen helps us maintain/replace lost dieting muscle while we don't worry about ... and don't want ... to maintain/replace the fat.
By the way, this is a big reason why, when dieting, you'll often hear most trainers and medical folks suggest some type of weight regimen along with cardio and reduced caloric intake. Most of us think of weight training the wrong way ... like we need to figure out how to set a world record in the press or continually beat our personal best ... however, it's not quite to that extreme and just a little incorporation of weights into your overall routine will help to replenish any muscle that gets consumed in the dieting effect ... provided that we aren't going to extremes in our caloric deficits.0 -
thanks0
-
thank you very helpful but to be sure, do i need to net 1200-1500 after excercise for the day to lose 2 lbs a week?0
-
Bump0
-
thanks for the great explanation!0
-
lots of "myths" floating around in this thread...
if you want to know what's what go to alan aragorns page and he'll set you straight...
at the end of the day calories out > calories in you will lose weight...
having said that, everyone on a weight loss plan should also be involved in a weight resistance traning program which totally bunks the whole "OMG i'm burning all my muscle and no fat" myth... and you should be making sure you are getting ample protien in your diet from multiple sources...
dude, I like your thinking and I personally think that "eating back your exercise calories" is wrong, but I still do not understand if it is true or not that your body burns/eats muscles FIRST and then the fat , as the other people are saying?
So according to this logic, all those biggest loser people are coming back home without any muscles on them, still loaded to the rim with all those glorious fats ?
They are on recommended 1000 to 1750 cal diets in there
Further to that, their hearts must surely be damaged beyond control?
And one more thing, regarding healthy , fit people versus obese , fat people,
there must be different rules for different bodies?
Im obese (used to be ) , and I have around 50 more lb to lose,
surely, my metabolism and daily activities will not bypass all the lovely fat that I have and go directly for my calf muscles, or my heart or my biceps to feed itself?
I know Im being a bit cheeky here, but can anyone explain this?
If you already have a deficit biut into your target how can eating back your calories be wrong? You are just making sure that you do not create too large a deficit. I have not re-read the thread, but cannot recall someone making a sweeping statement that muscle is burnt before fat. The issue is, creating a very large deficit regularly, makes it more likely for the weight loss to be higher % of muscle than it would be if you have a smaller deficit. Morbidly obese people do not have the issue that other folks do as there is enough fat stores not to have to dip into the muscle at all - actually, its the ideal time to try to build muscle.
I think this was already explained.
yes, I was asking questions regarding fat, obese people
OP states this:
"Over the same period of time, Jane's body will respond to the huge caloric defecit and try to preserve the body, by burning Jane's muscle rather than her fat. The number on the scale drops, but Jane does not seem to get any skinnier. "
this is what is not explained and what I was aiming at
If Jane is obese, as most of us are, why would her muscle get burned before fat? even with huge caloric deficit? I get the fact that some % of muscle is getting burned but the OP states that in huge deficits, somehow, muscle gets burned before fat?
we see these kinds of things (huge caloric deficits) all the time on biggest loser and other weight losing shows?
I do not think the OP was referring to morbidly obese folks. If Jane is morbidly obese then her fat would generally get burned first.
"Jane" has 50lb to lose - less than the people on biggest loser0 -
bumpity bump0
-
If the body's default is to burn muscle rather than fat then it wouldn't store fat to start with. It would store muscle.
Nobody is going to burn off their muscle until they are in the advanced stages of starvation.
This.0 -
lots of "myths" floating around in this thread...
if you want to know what's what go to alan aragorns page and he'll set you straight...
at the end of the day calories out > calories in you will lose weight...
having said that, everyone on a weight loss plan should also be involved in a weight resistance traning program which totally bunks the whole "OMG i'm burning all my muscle and no fat" myth... and you should be making sure you are getting ample protien in your diet from multiple sources...
dude, I like your thinking and I personally think that "eating back your exercise calories" is wrong, but I still do not understand if it is true or not that your body burns/eats muscles FIRST and then the fat , as the other people are saying?
So according to this logic, all those biggest loser people are coming back home without any muscles on them, still loaded to the rim with all those glorious fats ?
They are on recommended 1000 to 1750 cal diets in there
Further to that, their hearts must surely be damaged beyond control?
And one more thing, regarding healthy , fit people versus obese , fat people,
there must be different rules for different bodies?
Im obese (used to be ) , and I have around 50 more lb to lose,
surely, my metabolism and daily activities will not bypass all the lovely fat that I have and go directly for my calf muscles, or my heart or my biceps to feed itself?
I know Im being a bit cheeky here, but can anyone explain this?
If you already have a deficit biut into your target how can eating back your calories be wrong? You are just making sure that you do not create too large a deficit. I have not re-read the thread, but cannot recall someone making a sweeping statement that muscle is burnt before fat. The issue is, creating a very large deficit regularly, makes it more likely for the weight loss to be higher % of muscle than it would be if you have a smaller deficit. Morbidly obese people do not have the issue that other folks do as there is enough fat stores not to have to dip into the muscle at all - actually, its the ideal time to try to build muscle.
I think this was already explained.
yes, I was asking questions regarding fat, obese people
OP states this:
"Over the same period of time, Jane's body will respond to the huge caloric defecit and try to preserve the body, by burning Jane's muscle rather than her fat. The number on the scale drops, but Jane does not seem to get any skinnier. "
this is what is not explained and what I was aiming at
If Jane is obese, as most of us are, why would her muscle get burned before fat? even with huge caloric deficit? I get the fact that some % of muscle is getting burned but the OP states that in huge deficits, somehow, muscle gets burned before fat?
we see these kinds of things (huge caloric deficits) all the time on biggest loser and other weight losing shows?
I do not think the OP was referring to morbidly obese folks. If Jane is morbidly obese then her fat would generally get burned first.
"Jane" has 50lb to lose - less than the people on biggest loser
actually morbidly obese people would lose a lot of muscle, as their body would no longer require it in order to move around less mass. If the body does not think it needs the muscle it has (not being over loaded) then the muscle will go away. This is why strength training while in a caloric deficit is so important, it allows you to retain lean muscle as you lose fat. Since your body would be using the muscle it will retain it.0 -
lots of "myths" floating around in this thread...
if you want to know what's what go to alan aragorns page and he'll set you straight...
at the end of the day calories out > calories in you will lose weight...
having said that, everyone on a weight loss plan should also be involved in a weight resistance traning program which totally bunks the whole "OMG i'm burning all my muscle and no fat" myth... and you should be making sure you are getting ample protien in your diet from multiple sources...
dude, I like your thinking and I personally think that "eating back your exercise calories" is wrong, but I still do not understand if it is true or not that your body burns/eats muscles FIRST and then the fat , as the other people are saying?
So according to this logic, all those biggest loser people are coming back home without any muscles on them, still loaded to the rim with all those glorious fats ?
They are on recommended 1000 to 1750 cal diets in there
Further to that, their hearts must surely be damaged beyond control?
And one more thing, regarding healthy , fit people versus obese , fat people,
there must be different rules for different bodies?
Im obese (used to be ) , and I have around 50 more lb to lose,
surely, my metabolism and daily activities will not bypass all the lovely fat that I have and go directly for my calf muscles, or my heart or my biceps to feed itself?
I know Im being a bit cheeky here, but can anyone explain this?
If you already have a deficit biut into your target how can eating back your calories be wrong? You are just making sure that you do not create too large a deficit. I have not re-read the thread, but cannot recall someone making a sweeping statement that muscle is burnt before fat. The issue is, creating a very large deficit regularly, makes it more likely for the weight loss to be higher % of muscle than it would be if you have a smaller deficit. Morbidly obese people do not have the issue that other folks do as there is enough fat stores not to have to dip into the muscle at all - actually, its the ideal time to try to build muscle.
I think this was already explained.
yes, I was asking questions regarding fat, obese people
OP states this:
"Over the same period of time, Jane's body will respond to the huge caloric defecit and try to preserve the body, by burning Jane's muscle rather than her fat. The number on the scale drops, but Jane does not seem to get any skinnier. "
this is what is not explained and what I was aiming at
If Jane is obese, as most of us are, why would her muscle get burned before fat? even with huge caloric deficit? I get the fact that some % of muscle is getting burned but the OP states that in huge deficits, somehow, muscle gets burned before fat?
we see these kinds of things (huge caloric deficits) all the time on biggest loser and other weight losing shows?
I do not think the OP was referring to morbidly obese folks. If Jane is morbidly obese then her fat would generally get burned first.
"Jane" has 50lb to lose - less than the people on biggest loser
actually morbidly obese people would lose a lot of muscle, as their body would no longer require it in order to move around less mass. If the body does not think it needs the muscle it has (not being over loaded) then the muscle will go away. This is why strength training while in a caloric deficit is so important, it allows you to retain lean muscle as you lose fat. Since your body would be using the muscle it will retain it.
Absolutely agree that strength training is very important but I am talking about people while they are morbidly obese and still have loads of weight to lose - their energy will generally come from fat stores at a higher rate than people who do not have as high BF% in the first place.0 -
Thank you! Finally someone with common sense responding to this post. Its not pure maths and it doesn't take into account that food makes up 70% of your weight loss, while exercise (including incidental) accounts for the other 30%.
It doesn't matter how much you exercise, if you're not eating right or eating too much, you'll never loose the weight - even if mathematically you beleive you should. I tried it for 12 weeks and failed miserably. After seeing a sports dietician, they made it perfectly clear, you need to eat less to loose weight. And finally it worked. I ate my exercise calories back initially - rookie error. I lost next to nothing. Dropped the calories again - RESULTS! I was never hungry, had boundless energy and dropped the kgs every week.
You can't eat back all your exercise calories and loose weight. It just doesn't work that way.0 -
You can't eat back all your exercise calories and loose weight. It just doesn't work that way.
Maybe not for you but it's working great for me. I fail to see the reasoning behind everyone assuming there is a one-size-fits-all solution to weight loss. Everybody is different and is likely to react different to a lack or food or too much food. The important thing is to figure out what works for you.0 -
Thank you! Finally someone with common sense responding to this post. Its not pure maths and it doesn't take into account that food makes up 70% of your weight loss, while exercise (including incidental) accounts for the other 30%.
It doesn't matter how much you exercise, if you're not eating right or eating too much, you'll never loose the weight - even if mathematically you beleive you should. I tried it for 12 weeks and failed miserably. After seeing a sports dietician, they made it perfectly clear, you need to eat less to loose weight. And finally it worked. I ate my exercise calories back initially - rookie error. I lost next to nothing. Dropped the calories again - RESULTS! I was never hungry, had boundless energy and dropped the kgs every week.
You can't eat back all your exercise calories and loose weight. It just doesn't work that way.
If you have a deficit already built in to your base calories - you absolutely can and do lose weight by eating exercise calories back. This does however assume that you have set your base correctly and are accurate with your calorie burn. One issue people have is that calories assumed to be used in exercise are often overstated.
I lose am steadily losing weight and am eating my exercise calories back but I am careful to be a bit conservative in the exercise calories I do eat back (otherwise I will be eating into my deficit).0 -
Great, informative article! Thank you!0
-
Thank you for this, you very CLEARLY laid it all out!
0 -
Thank you! Finally someone with common sense responding to this post. Its not pure maths and it doesn't take into account that food makes up 70% of your weight loss, while exercise (including incidental) accounts for the other 30%.
It doesn't matter how much you exercise, if you're not eating right or eating too much, you'll never loose the weight - even if mathematically you beleive you should. I tried it for 12 weeks and failed miserably. After seeing a sports dietician, they made it perfectly clear, you need to eat less to loose weight. And finally it worked. I ate my exercise calories back initially - rookie error. I lost next to nothing. Dropped the calories again - RESULTS! I was never hungry, had boundless energy and dropped the kgs every week.
You can't eat back all your exercise calories and loose weight. It just doesn't work that way.
If you have a deficit already built in to your base calories - you absolutely can and do lose weight by eating exercise calories back. This does however assume that you have set your base correctly and are accurate with your calorie burn. One issue people have is that calories assumed to be used in exercise are often overstated.
I lose am steadily losing weight and am eating my exercise calories back but I am careful to be a bit conservative in the exercise calories I do eat back (otherwise I will be eating into my deficit).
I mostly agree with the general consenus here about eating the calories back and the OP did a wonderful job of explaining why... but your diet should have a deficit to start and then you exercise on top of it. I use BFFM (burn fat, feed muscle) and you actually reduce your calories 20-30% of maintenance (based off your exercise level first...) and then you reduce the calories and then exercise to make a larger deficit. (my maintenance is 2300, exercise 5-6 times a week) reduced by 30% and my calorie goal is 1600. Then I exercise about 1000 calories a day (I exercise 2 times a day and wear the body bugg to calculate calories burned). I do not eat back 1000 calories... but MFP showed 1200 calories when i started and could not lose weight, so upped to 1600-1700 calories and keep track of my ratios keeping 45% carbs, 35 % proteins, 20% fats and so far I am losing again!! So upping my calories was a life saver, but if you exercise alot, you cannot eat them all back I dont think and still lose, but definitely the normal average "exerciser" should be able to ... one size does not fit all!!0 -
bump for later0
-
THANK YOU for explaining this to me. I haven't been eating back my exercise calories and while I've lost weight, I find that I'm alwayas starving. I was afraid to eat more because I didn't want to gain, but it makes more sense to give your body the fuel it needs so you can continue to do the things you need to do to LOSE weight (like exercise). I'll start eating those calories back and see what happens.0
-
I understand this in theory...and I have even tried it...and didn't lose a pound...it just doesn't work for everybody. I have found where MY personal Sweet Spot is. I eat back about 1/4 to 1/2 of my exercise calories and stay right on target for my 2 lb weight loss per week.0
-
bump. Thanks for the explanation!0
-
I'm so glad that you posted this because I had no idea that I needed to eat the excess calories that I gained from working out. This may explain why I haven't been able to lose weight much weight and why I'm actually gaining the weight back.0
-
Bumpity Bump BUMP.
Thanks.0 -
wow I really really like the way you explained this, I understand it now. Thank you so much for taking the time to write this, a tremendous help to me. 0
-
This is great information!! Thanks OP0
-
Thank you. I know there's a lot of discussion on MFP about this, but it's so confusing. Your post is reassuring. MFP did set my goal at 1200, which I'm able to stick to most days, but I also have anywhere from 300-1000 calories burned from exercise (real exercise - I'm not counting housecleaning and grocery shopping anymore) every day. And I'm hungry again (4 months into this). But I just didn't understand the whole net thing. So thanks.0
-
I agree but disagree, MFP is very optimistic when assigning Calories for Exercise, so I try and not eat them all back...0
-
Bump. Great post! I was just trying to explain this to someone this morning :-)0
-
Thank you for the information. Now I understand why this is so important.0
-
Great discussion here, both original poster and well-considered follow-ups. I can see reason in the original post and some of the disagreement. From a practical standpoint, I have noticed that when I eat back all my calories, I do not lose weight. So, from a practical standpoint, here is what I am doing. Feel free to pick.
1) MFP has my daily intake at 1200 calories. I can't actually eat less than this without getting a warning about not eating enough.
2) I find it difficult to eat under 1200 calories. In fact, I have to work out to hit 1200 (2lb per week). So, sometimes I am over by several hundred, and sometimes a little under (after workout). But, I figure even if I eat 1600 or 1700, it is still enough to lose a little weight., because MFP says my daily need is about 2200.
3) I get a sense that complex carbs are not my friend, weight-wise, nor are processed foods. So, I try, am sometimes unsuccessful, to focus on protein (fish, chicken, beef), veggies, and fruit (I know, sugars, but am good with that) ... I think I put on weight when I eat breads and processed foods.
4) I don't know, but expect my metabolism is slower than average.
5) I expect MFP overestimates calories burned. Although, the ellipticals at the gym, which record weight, age, but not gender, give higher values. So, I always assume my calorie burn is less than I am told.
6) I expect that I underestimate portioins and calories of what I eat, so I assume I am eating more calories than I log ... although I do log everything.
7) I am supremely busy and don't have a lot of time to exercise. I try to use the elliptical for 45-60 minutes three times a week, and weight machines too. Sometimes I do better than three times per week.
So, all that being said, my approach is to eat back some, but not all of my exercise calories. Perhaps, a ballpark figure is I try to eat back 1/3 to 1/2 of my exercise calories.
Great discussion.
Sean0
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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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