Message Boards » General Diet and Weight Loss Help

TOPIC: EAT EXERCISE CALORIES

« Prev 1
« Prev 1
 
Ic_disabled_photos
Topic has been inactive for 30 days or more and images have been disabled.
Display All Images
October 24, 2011 10:37 AM
At least most of them if you are already eating a low calorie diet. From my experience:

I was eating around 1500 calories a day and then exercising 30 minutes (or 3 miles) on top of that and burning an excess of almost 500 calories. I was wondering why I wasn't losing anymore weight, afterall the whole point is to eat less and exercise more right? Well, not necessarily.

I was stuck at the same weight for 2 weeks so finally after reluctantly taking advice to eat my exercise calories (at least most of them) the last week alone I dropped almost 4 pounds.

It breaks down to this:

I eat 1500 calories a day - 500 calories burned from working out = 1000 calories net. I was starving my body and it was holding on to my excess fat!

All in all, eat more (healty food that is) and exercise and the weight will come off!
  202710
October 24, 2011 10:42 AM
QUOTE:

At least most of them if you are already eating a low calorie diet. From my experience:

I was eating around 1500 calories a day and then exercising 30 minutes (or 3 miles) on top of that and burning an excess of almost 500 calories. I was wondering why I wasn't losing anymore weight, afterall the whole point is to eat less and exercise more right? Well, not necessarily.

I was stuck at the same weight for 2 weeks so finally after reluctantly taking advice to eat my exercise calories (at least most of them) the last week alone I dropped almost 4 pounds.

It breaks down to this:

I eat 1500 calories a day - 500 calories burned from working out = 1000 calories net. I was starving my body and it was holding on to my excess fat!

All in all, eat more (healty food that is) and exercise and the weight will come off!


*hides under the table waiting for the nay-sayers to rear their ugly heads*

ps i agree with you.
October 24, 2011 10:44 AM
This is great advice. My boyfriend keeps eating under his calorie intake for the day, buring like 1000cals a day and has hit a wall. I'm going to copy this post and email it to him. Thanks! wink
  366623
October 24, 2011 10:44 AM
I love it that you're already mad and you've only made three posts laugh
  5978
October 24, 2011 10:46 AM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

At least most of them if you are already eating a low calorie diet. From my experience:

I was eating around 1500 calories a day and then exercising 30 minutes (or 3 miles) on top of that and burning an excess of almost 500 calories. I was wondering why I wasn't losing anymore weight, afterall the whole point is to eat less and exercise more right? Well, not necessarily.

I was stuck at the same weight for 2 weeks so finally after reluctantly taking advice to eat my exercise calories (at least most of them) the last week alone I dropped almost 4 pounds.

It breaks down to this:

I eat 1500 calories a day - 500 calories burned from working out = 1000 calories net. I was starving my body and it was holding on to my excess fat!

All in all, eat more (healty food that is) and exercise and the weight will come off!


*hides under the table waiting for the nay-sayers to rear their ugly heads*

ps i agree with you.


*giggle* . . . . . Wait for it. . . .. I hear . . . the drama. . .. comin.
  3923333
October 24, 2011 10:46 AM
You make a great point. I see you are new to the forum. I'm afraid you're beating a dead horse as far as this place is concerned.
October 24, 2011 10:49 AM
QUOTE:

At least most of them if you are already eating a low calorie diet. From my experience:

I was eating around 1500 calories a day and then exercising 30 minutes (or 3 miles) on top of that and burning an excess of almost 500 calories. I was wondering why I wasn't losing anymore weight, afterall the whole point is to eat less and exercise more right? Well, not necessarily.

I was stuck at the same weight for 2 weeks so finally after reluctantly taking advice to eat my exercise calories (at least most of them) the last week alone I dropped almost 4 pounds.

It breaks down to this:

I eat 1500 calories a day - 500 calories burned from working out = 1000 calories net. I was starving my body and it was holding on to my excess fat!

All in all, eat more (healty food that is) and exercise and the weight will come off!


Thank you!! I can't tell you how many posts I see about someone's weight loss stalling....well that tends to happen if you are eating 1200 calories and burning 500 to 1000 a day.

Please eat! Food is not the enemy! Undereating and Overeating are!
October 24, 2011 10:49 AM
QUOTE:

You make a great point. I see you are new to the forum. I'm afraid you're beating a dead horse as far as this place is concerned.


To posting yes but I've been reading them for a while and this comes up a lot. I just thought I'd put my two cents out there anyways.
  202710
October 24, 2011 10:55 AM
I love eating my exercise calories, they are yummy!
  9653437
October 24, 2011 4:34 PM
Perhaps that's why I'm not losing weight? I'm frustrated very much! I'm not overweight...5'4, 125 pounds, but I packed on 10 lbs in the past year. I've been at 115 lbs forever....and would like to lose that weight. For the past month, I've been eating 1200 kcals/day....and exercising about 4 times a week, an hour at a time, burning about 500 kcals (spinning class or bootcamp class). In fact, I'm noticing nothing that's changed about my body....my jeans/clothes still fit the same, and I weight the same.

Maybe a month is too soon to see results? It's really discouraging, but I don't eat my exercise calories either. Maybe I should? Despite all that I'm reading on this post, I'm still so scared I'll gain weight, because I'd be eating 1700 kcals/day, which is so much more than I ever eat.
October 24, 2011 4:50 PM
Here comes a nay-sayer...


Please explain how this makes any sense.

Please cite a credible study(s) that shows a definite entry into 'starvation mode'.

If you're going to use the metabolism defense, please cite a study that has strong evidence to suggest metabolism is affected enough to adversely prevent you from losing weight.

I am having a hard time believing you should eat back calories you just burnt.
October 24, 2011 5:08 PM
i dont think eating 1000 cals a day is starving yourself- someone who is very small may be ok on this number-plus, i cant starve with all the excess weight that makes no sense to me. people in third world countries are starving- the phrase 'starvation mode' always makes me cringe, it seems to be used alot , sometimes by people who have no idea of the concept of starvation!!!!! just my opinion on 'starvation'. rant over.

HOWEVER i do think that eating exercise cals can be a good thing, or even eating some of them- if you burn 1000 cals a day and only eat 1200 then i think you could do damage. not 'starvation mode', as you would definetly lose weight, not 'hold on to it' (again, this seems ridiculous to me- if i ate minimal calories for a long period of time i would lose weight, otherwise people would never starve!!!)

so i do agree with some of what you say- there shouldnt be too big a deficit (in my opinion) so eating exercise calories can be a good thing, but 1000 calories wont make you starve. also, two weeks may have been too soon to see the results- or, if you were doing the same thing, your body maybe needed you to mix things up.

in my opinion (i say this alot bc i know people may have alot to say) so again, in my opinion, eating more isnt always the answer. people kept sayng this to me and i believed it for a while, then i found myself forcing food just to make up the calories- that cant be good.

im glad it worked for you. it just may not work for everyone.
  8147619
October 24, 2011 5:29 PM
Solution:

Stop using MFP's caloric recommendation and go with a formula that makes more sense. Since people tend to underestimate intake and overestimate calories burned, MFP's system can lead to a perfect storm of inaccuracy.

I suggest Alan Aragon's recommendation (from AARR, Feb 2011)

QUOTE:
(important note: target bodyweight for this formula is in pounds):
Target BW x (8‐10 or 9‐11 + avg. total weekly training hours)

Notice that there are 2 separate ranges of multipliers. The lower range (8-10) is more suitable for women since they have a higher percentage of bodyfat than men, and thus a lower proportion of lean mass. Using the higher range (9-11) on women would have a tendency to overestimate needs. Each range has a certain margin to account for differences in intensity. Low, medium, and high-intensity work can be factored in by using the low, middle, or high end of each range, depending on where your training sessions average during the week. Both formal cardio and weight training sessions must be included when totaling up average weekly training hours. Vigorous recreational physical activity (ie, sports games & practices) should also be tallied in.


Disclaimer: If you've been following MFP's recommendations and it's been working for you, by all means stick to it. ANY formula will only estimate needs and may need to be adjusted up/down.
Edited by PB67 On October 24, 2011 5:31 PM
October 24, 2011 5:36 PM
QUOTE:

Solution:

Stop using MFP's caloric recommendation and go with a formula that makes more sense. Since people tend to underestimate intake and overestimate calories burned, MFP's system can lead to a perfect storm of inaccuracy.

I suggest Alan Aragon's recommendation (from AARR, Feb 2011)

QUOTE:
(important note: target bodyweight for this formula is in pounds):
Target BW x (8‐10 or 9‐11 + avg. total weekly training hours)

Notice that there are 2 separate ranges of multipliers. The lower range (8-10) is more suitable for women since they have a higher percentage of bodyfat than men, and thus a lower proportion of lean mass. Using the higher range (9-11) on women would have a tendency to overestimate needs. Each range has a certain margin to account for differences in intensity. Low, medium, and high-intensity work can be factored in by using the low, middle, or high end of each range, depending on where your training sessions average during the week. Both formal cardio and weight training sessions must be included when totaling up average weekly training hours. Vigorous recreational physical activity (ie, sports games & practices) should also be tallied in.


Disclaimer: If you've been following MFP's recommendations and it's been working for you, by all means stick to it. ANY formula will only estimate needs and may need to be adjusted up/down.


interesting- mine said 1033 (if i followed it correctly) which seems fine to me, whereas others would scream 'starvation mode' at me.
  8147619
October 24, 2011 5:38 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

Solution:

Stop using MFP's caloric recommendation and go with a formula that makes more sense. Since people tend to underestimate intake and overestimate calories burned, MFP's system can lead to a perfect storm of inaccuracy.

I suggest Alan Aragon's recommendation (from AARR, Feb 2011)

QUOTE:
(important note: target bodyweight for this formula is in pounds):
Target BW x (8‐10 or 9‐11 + avg. total weekly training hours)

Notice that there are 2 separate ranges of multipliers. The lower range (8-10) is more suitable for women since they have a higher percentage of bodyfat than men, and thus a lower proportion of lean mass. Using the higher range (9-11) on women would have a tendency to overestimate needs. Each range has a certain margin to account for differences in intensity. Low, medium, and high-intensity work can be factored in by using the low, middle, or high end of each range, depending on where your training sessions average during the week. Both formal cardio and weight training sessions must be included when totaling up average weekly training hours. Vigorous recreational physical activity (ie, sports games & practices) should also be tallied in.


Disclaimer: If you've been following MFP's recommendations and it's been working for you, by all means stick to it. ANY formula will only estimate needs and may need to be adjusted up/down.


interesting- mine said 1033 (if i followed it correctly) which seems fine to me, whereas others would scream 'starvation mode' at me.


That sounds low. What is your target weight and how many hours do you spend exercising each week?
October 24, 2011 5:43 PM
QUOTE:

Solution:

Stop using MFP's caloric recommendation and go with a formula that makes more sense. Since people tend to underestimate intake and overestimate calories burned, MFP's system can lead to a perfect storm of inaccuracy.

I suggest Alan Aragon's recommendation (from AARR, Feb 2011)

QUOTE:
(important note: target bodyweight for this formula is in pounds):
Target BW x (8‐10 or 9‐11 + avg. total weekly training hours)

Notice that there are 2 separate ranges of multipliers. The lower range (8-10) is more suitable for women since they have a higher percentage of bodyfat than men, and thus a lower proportion of lean mass. Using the higher range (9-11) on women would have a tendency to overestimate needs. Each range has a certain margin to account for differences in intensity. Low, medium, and high-intensity work can be factored in by using the low, middle, or high end of each range, depending on where your training sessions average during the week. Both formal cardio and weight training sessions must be included when totaling up average weekly training hours. Vigorous recreational physical activity (ie, sports games & practices) should also be tallied in.


Disclaimer: If you've been following MFP's recommendations and it's been working for you, by all means stick to it. ANY formula will only estimate needs and may need to be adjusted up/down.


Someone that reads from Lyle McDonald? On MFP? I must be in Bizarro world.
October 24, 2011 5:55 PM
QUOTE:


Someone that reads from Lyle McDonald? On MFP? I must be in Bizarro world.


I hope you're sitting down:





























I also subscribe to Alan Aragon's Research Review

Image not displayed
October 24, 2011 5:56 PM
QUOTE:

Solution:

Stop using MFP's caloric recommendation and go with a formula that makes more sense. Since people tend to underestimate intake and overestimate calories burned, MFP's system can lead to a perfect storm of inaccuracy.

I suggest Alan Aragon's recommendation (from AARR, Feb 2011)

QUOTE:
(important note: target bodyweight for this formula is in pounds):
Target BW x (8‐10 or 9‐11 + avg. total weekly training hours)

Notice that there are 2 separate ranges of multipliers. The lower range (8-10) is more suitable for women since they have a higher percentage of bodyfat than men, and thus a lower proportion of lean mass. Using the higher range (9-11) on women would have a tendency to overestimate needs. Each range has a certain margin to account for differences in intensity. Low, medium, and high-intensity work can be factored in by using the low, middle, or high end of each range, depending on where your training sessions average during the week. Both formal cardio and weight training sessions must be included when totaling up average weekly training hours. Vigorous recreational physical activity (ie, sports games & practices) should also be tallied in.


Disclaimer: If you've been following MFP's recommendations and it's been working for you, by all means stick to it. ANY formula will only estimate needs and may need to be adjusted up/down.


Awesome! Using this formula I got the same number that the Bod Pod recommended. I love your avi btw.
October 24, 2011 5:59 PM
opposite was true for me. once i started on 1400 calories per day and i do NOT eat back my exercise calories, that's when the weight started coming off.
  3681656
October 24, 2011 6:01 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

Solution:

Stop using MFP's caloric recommendation and go with a formula that makes more sense. Since people tend to underestimate intake and overestimate calories burned, MFP's system can lead to a perfect storm of inaccuracy.

I suggest Alan Aragon's recommendation (from AARR, Feb 2011)

QUOTE:
(important note: target bodyweight for this formula is in pounds):
Target BW x (8‐10 or 9‐11 + avg. total weekly training hours)

Notice that there are 2 separate ranges of multipliers. The lower range (8-10) is more suitable for women since they have a higher percentage of bodyfat than men, and thus a lower proportion of lean mass. Using the higher range (9-11) on women would have a tendency to overestimate needs. Each range has a certain margin to account for differences in intensity. Low, medium, and high-intensity work can be factored in by using the low, middle, or high end of each range, depending on where your training sessions average during the week. Both formal cardio and weight training sessions must be included when totaling up average weekly training hours. Vigorous recreational physical activity (ie, sports games & practices) should also be tallied in.


Disclaimer: If you've been following MFP's recommendations and it's been working for you, by all means stick to it. ANY formula will only estimate needs and may need to be adjusted up/down.


interesting- mine said 1033 (if i followed it correctly) which seems fine to me, whereas others would scream 'starvation mode' at me.


That sounds low. What is your target weight and how many hours do you spend exercising each week?


i might have done it wrong, but i eat around 1000-1200 cals most days so it sounded reasonable. target weight is 130lbs exercise would be 3 hrs (not at the mo as im recovering from an operation, but it will be 3hrs as soon as in fit)
  8147619
October 24, 2011 6:04 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:


Someone that reads from Lyle McDonald? On MFP? I must be in Bizarro world.


I hope you're sitting down:





























I also subscribe to Alan Aragon's Research Review


YOU'RE NOT REAL! YOU'RE NOT REAL!!!
October 24, 2011 6:04 PM
thanks! I think i'll go to the kitchen now and find something to eat so i can enjoy my exercise calories. Its 8pm here so I better run fast!.....lol brb
  12139020
October 24, 2011 6:07 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

Solution:

Stop using MFP's caloric recommendation and go with a formula that makes more sense. Since people tend to underestimate intake and overestimate calories burned, MFP's system can lead to a perfect storm of inaccuracy.

I suggest Alan Aragon's recommendation (from AARR, Feb 2011)

QUOTE:
(important note: target bodyweight for this formula is in pounds):
Target BW x (8‐10 or 9‐11 + avg. total weekly training hours)

Notice that there are 2 separate ranges of multipliers. The lower range (8-10) is more suitable for women since they have a higher percentage of bodyfat than men, and thus a lower proportion of lean mass. Using the higher range (9-11) on women would have a tendency to overestimate needs. Each range has a certain margin to account for differences in intensity. Low, medium, and high-intensity work can be factored in by using the low, middle, or high end of each range, depending on where your training sessions average during the week. Both formal cardio and weight training sessions must be included when totaling up average weekly training hours. Vigorous recreational physical activity (ie, sports games & practices) should also be tallied in.


Disclaimer: If you've been following MFP's recommendations and it's been working for you, by all means stick to it. ANY formula will only estimate needs and may need to be adjusted up/down.


interesting- mine said 1033 (if i followed it correctly) which seems fine to me, whereas others would scream 'starvation mode' at me.


That sounds low. What is your target weight and how many hours do you spend exercising each week?


i might have done it wrong, but i eat around 1000-1200 cals most days so it sounded reasonable. target weight is 130lbs exercise would be 3 hrs (not at the mo as im recovering from an operation, but it will be 3hrs as soon as in fit)


Low End:
130*(3+8)=1430

High End:
130*(3+10)=1690


Split the difference to get 1560 calories. I would start there if I were you and adjust up/down as needed.
October 24, 2011 6:11 PM
I think that both ways probably works. I don't trust the starvation mode thing, as I feel that it would take a long time to reach said starvation mode, but I have noticed that if I eat 1400 calories, and burn off 600 of those (about average) I don't lose ANY weight. I don't gain, but I stay the same. This is with drinking 10-12 glasses of water a day, and watching sodium. But if I eat 1900 calories, and burn off 700 of those (so my net is around 1200-1300) I actually lose weight like nuts. But that's me, I'll do what works for me. I enjoy eating a few extra calories any how, haha.

But when I used that formula you just gave, my number was right around 1250 or such. So does that mean that's how much I should eat a day, rather I exercise or not? or is this how much I should aim for my net to be? I'm a bit confused.
  11480940
October 24, 2011 6:15 PM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

QUOTE:

Solution:

Stop using MFP's caloric recommendation and go with a formula that makes more sense. Since people tend to underestimate intake and overestimate calories burned, MFP's system can lead to a perfect storm of inaccuracy.

I suggest Alan Aragon's recommendation (from AARR, Feb 2011)

QUOTE:
(important note: target bodyweight for this formula is in pounds):
Target BW x (8‐10 or 9‐11 + avg. total weekly training hours)

Notice that there are 2 separate ranges of multipliers. The lower range (8-10) is more suitable for women since they have a higher percentage of bodyfat than men, and thus a lower proportion of lean mass. Using the higher range (9-11) on women would have a tendency to overestimate needs. Each range has a certain margin to account for differences in intensity. Low, medium, and high-intensity work can be factored in by using the low, middle, or high end of each range, depending on where your training sessions average during the week. Both formal cardio and weight training sessions must be included when totaling up average weekly training hours. Vigorous recreational physical activity (ie, sports games & practices) should also be tallied in.


Disclaimer: If you've been following MFP's recommendations and it's been working for you, by all means stick to it. ANY formula will only estimate needs and may need to be adjusted up/down.


interesting- mine said 1033 (if i followed it correctly) which seems fine to me, whereas others would scream 'starvation mode' at me.


That sounds low. What is your target weight and how many hours do you spend exercising each week?


i might have done it wrong, but i eat around 1000-1200 cals most days so it sounded reasonable. target weight is 130lbs exercise would be 3 hrs (not at the mo as im recovering from an operation, but it will be 3hrs as soon as in fit)


Low End:
130*(3+8)=1430

High End:
130*(3+10)=1690


Split the difference to get 1560 calories. I would start there if I were you and adjust up/down as needed.


thanks for your help!!

dont have a clue how you worked this out, but strangley i trust it, lol. however i struggle to eat 1200 cals alot of the time so this would be impossible. i am hoping to up my exercise though so maybe il eat 1200 calories min then. if i get hungry i will eat more- i wont stop eating at 1200 calories if i still find im hungry. but im still not convinced on this eating exercise calories thing. il just eat if im hungry, stop when im not. if this means i stop at 1000 cals- i will. if i go over the odd day thats ok too, but i dont see that eating them as a rule is helpful. but thats just me.bigsmile
  8147619

Reply

Message Boards » General Diet and Weight Loss Help

Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy.