“Don't ‘eat back’ exercise calories”

[Anonymous]

I do not understand what your problem is? Someone suggested that at 2300 calories a day, OP must be a tall and husky man. I am sinply pointing out that she is within range for a very active woman.

If you want to know YOURS, check a calculator to see where you fall within the range.

As for posting "random meaningless thing" from the internet, you will not find a different answer anywhere because this range is well known and studied.

But there will always be a range because there is no on size fits all. So check a calculator and stop being...whatever it is you're being. Like, argumentative for no discernible reason?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not understand what your problem is? Someone suggested that at 2300 calories a day, OP must be a tall and husky man. I am sinply pointing out that she is within range for a very active woman.

If you want to know YOURS, check a calculator to see where you fall within the range.

As for posting "random meaningless thing" from the internet, you will not find a different answer anywhere because this range is well known and studied.

But there will always be a range because there is no on size fits all. So check a calculator and stop being...whatever it is you're being. Like, argumentative for no discernible reason?

You found some random post to support that OP’s caloric maintenance level is 2300 per day. When the reality is that her maintenance is not likely to 2300 per day based on what’s she’s posted.

[Anonymous]

This is why I can’t exercise. If I work out even 30 minutes I am ravenously hungry and can think of nothing besides immediately eating a pound of cheese or similar. The more I exercise, the more weight I gain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't that obvious if you're trying to lose weight? You need to be at a deficit of 500-1000 calories a day.

Yes. I was already in a deficit, but wasn’t seeing results. I was advised by a trainer to stay at 1300 calories a day. I was adding the calories burned through exercise and “eating” them, though still technically “consuming” 1300 calories. I’ve stopped “eating” the exercise back and the weight is steadily dropping a bit every day.

It wasn’t obvious to me, no, so maybe this success story will help someone else.

I'm sorry. This explanation is confusing me a bit. So you were eating 1300+ day and now just 1300?

Not OP, but sounds like they said to eat 1300 calories a day. She exercised and burned 400 calories, so she would eat 1300+400. Even though she "burned off" the 400 calories, it wasnt enough to lose weight. Now she is eating 1300/day no matter how much exercise, and making a difference on the scale.

OK, but that's stupid. Of course the scale won't move if yoi are "eating back" calories. No one does that. An athelete might carb load but that's going into a certain intense exercise

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not understand what your problem is? Someone suggested that at 2300 calories a day, OP must be a tall and husky man. I am sinply pointing out that she is within range for a very active woman.

If you want to know YOURS, check a calculator to see where you fall within the range.

As for posting "random meaningless thing" from the internet, you will not find a different answer anywhere because this range is well known and studied.

But there will always be a range because there is no on size fits all. So check a calculator and stop being...whatever it is you're being. Like, argumentative for no discernible reason?

You found some random post to support that OP’s caloric maintenance level is 2300 per day. When the reality is that her maintenance is not likely to 2300 per day based on what’s she’s posted.

You are just making stuff up now. She wasn't losing weight at 1800 a day, or at least she thinks. But that is just a 500 calorie deficit a day which means it is just slower weight loss. She is looking at ounces a day, which says a lot about her unhappiness with the speed.

And again, it is not a random internet source...it is the standard calorie range. You can't refute that.

I am 48 years old, 5 foot 2 and my maintenance is 2100-2200 calories a day. I weigh 150 which I am sure you think is grossly fat but I am happy and fit and my weight has held steady.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't that obvious if you're trying to lose weight? You need to be at a deficit of 500-1000 calories a day.

Yes. I was already in a deficit, but wasn’t seeing results. I was advised by a trainer to stay at 1300 calories a day. I was adding the calories burned through exercise and “eating” them, though still technically “consuming” 1300 calories. I’ve stopped “eating” the exercise back and the weight is steadily dropping a bit every day.

It wasn’t obvious to me, no, so maybe this success story will help someone else.

You weren't in a deficit. You were not consuming 1300 calories. You were at more and eating at maintenance.

I wasn’t. My maintenance is 2350. I was eating around 1800 calories after/with/however you want to phrase it.

Either way, it was a dumb mistake but one I wouldn’t have realized without asking here and getting help from the PP.

How is your maintenance so high? You must be a tall and husky guy?

I am a 5’6” and 140lbs female and my maintenance is 2400. I lift 5 times a week and get 10k+ steps everyday. Completely inactive my maintenance would be around 1800. You don’t need to be a big husky guy, you just need to move if you want to be able to eat more and not gain weight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not understand what your problem is? Someone suggested that at 2300 calories a day, OP must be a tall and husky man. I am sinply pointing out that she is within range for a very active woman.

If you want to know YOURS, check a calculator to see where you fall within the range.

As for posting "random meaningless thing" from the internet, you will not find a different answer anywhere because this range is well known and studied.

But there will always be a range because there is no on size fits all. So check a calculator and stop being...whatever it is you're being. Like, argumentative for no discernible reason?

You found some random post to support that OP’s caloric maintenance level is 2300 per day. When the reality is that her maintenance is not likely to 2300 per day based on what’s she’s posted.

You are just making stuff up now. She wasn't losing weight at 1800 a day, or at least she thinks. But that is just a 500 calorie deficit a day which means it is just slower weight loss. She is looking at ounces a day, which says a lot about her unhappiness with the speed.

And again, it is not a random internet source...it is the standard calorie range. You can't refute that.

I am 48 years old, 5 foot 2 and my maintenance is 2100-2200 calories a day. I weigh 150 which I am sure you think is grossly fat but I am happy and fit and my weight has held steady.

If she was not losing at 1800 calories, her maintenance was not 2300. That’s my point. You posting was posting some random internet thing does not tell us about OP’s maintenance which cannot be 2300. OP said she was not losing weight- you are now speculating that she was losing weight but at too low of a rate to notice.

I have never posted anything negative about someone’s weight in the many years I have posted. I’m not sure how you get that. I do think these boards are full of people who overestimate caloric output (like you and OP) and under estimate caloric input. I do point that out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't that obvious if you're trying to lose weight? You need to be at a deficit of 500-1000 calories a day.

Yes. I was already in a deficit, but wasn’t seeing results. I was advised by a trainer to stay at 1300 calories a day. I was adding the calories burned through exercise and “eating” them, though still technically “consuming” 1300 calories. I’ve stopped “eating” the exercise back and the weight is steadily dropping a bit every day.

It wasn’t obvious to me, no, so maybe this success story will help someone else.

You weren't in a deficit. You were not consuming 1300 calories. You were at more and eating at maintenance.

I wasn’t. My maintenance is 2350. I was eating around 1800 calories after/with/however you want to phrase it.

Either way, it was a dumb mistake but one I wouldn’t have realized without asking here and getting help from the PP.

How is your maintenance so high? You must be a tall and husky guy?

I’m tall, but I’m a woman. I ride a bike 7 days a week. I’m training for a distance race.

An active person who hasn't tanked their metabolism with restrictive and yoyo dieting can easily maintain on 2300 calories a day.

Basic recommendations:
1–40 years 1,800–2,200 calories
41–50 years 1,800–2,200 calories
51–60 years 1,600–2,200 calories

That is for average height/weight.

These recommendations don't account for weight, body composition, activity level, or gender. They are pretty meaningless.

So I'm guessing you don't understand the word "range" and "average height average weight."

These recommendations were for a female and the reason there is a range is that it they do account for weight, body composition, etc. You need to know where you fit in that range.

Well, I fit outside of that range..So I guess that is what PP meant

[Anonymous]

^ there are always going to be people for myriad reasons who are outside the range. Maybe hey're super super obese or super super super thin or have insulin resistance, like I used to, or have killed their metabolism with restrictive dieting.

That doesn't mean the ranges don't exist. Or aren't useful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ there are always going to be people for myriad reasons who are outside the range. Maybe hey're super super obese or super super super thin or have insulin resistance, like I used to, or have killed their metabolism with restrictive dieting.

That doesn't mean the ranges don't exist. Or aren't useful.

I am neither super thin, nor super obese. I would say at 5’6” and roughly 140lbs I am pretty average. Yet my maintenance is higher, because I am active. People should not go by arbitrary ranges and focus on their individual situation instead, considering total size, body composition and activity level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't that obvious if you're trying to lose weight? You need to be at a deficit of 500-1000 calories a day.

Yes. I was already in a deficit, but wasn’t seeing results. I was advised by a trainer to stay at 1300 calories a day. I was adding the calories burned through exercise and “eating” them, though still technically “consuming” 1300 calories. I’ve stopped “eating” the exercise back and the weight is steadily dropping a bit every day.

It wasn’t obvious to me, no, so maybe this success story will help someone else.

I'm sorry. This explanation is confusing me a bit. So you were eating 1300+ day and now just 1300?

Not OP, but sounds like they said to eat 1300 calories a day. She exercised and burned 400 calories, so she would eat 1300+400. Even though she "burned off" the 400 calories, it wasnt enough to lose weight. Now she is eating 1300/day no matter how much exercise, and making a difference on the scale.

OK, but that's stupid. Of course the scale won't move if yoi are "eating back" calories. No one does that. An athelete might carb load but that's going into a certain intense exercise

I don’t know. I am cutting right now just to lose a little body fat. I am only 5 foot 1, started around 113, at 110 now and will stop cutting at the end of next week. My cutting calories are 1370, and I also usually eat back another 150 when I exercise. And I have been losing steadily, about .5 lbs a week. Now I am already pretty lean and so I am fine with the cut going this slowly. But this is just to say, eating back exercise calories has a,ways worked for me, even when I was losing 15-20 lbs postpartum.