Calories In vs.Out

[LiveNLove]

Question! 

Is it okay to be "under" the calorie range?  I know you aren't supposed to be "over" and you should shoot for the "range" area.  I eat my calorie limit for the day but with exercise combined, it says I'm "under."  I just don't feel right eating back all those calories I just burned off!  What do you all think?  Thanks for any advice and comments!     

[Heybales]

You have a misconception - that exercise is for weight loss.

Eating at a deficit to what you burn in total results in weight loss - if that total burn happens to include exercise then you eat more, if not, you eat less.

But take the same reasonable deficit off both total burns.

You appear to think the bigger deficit created by exercise from what is already created is better.

If that is the thinking - why not just stop eating and get it over with quicker?

Whatever reasons you come up, and likely more you aren't aware of - will still happen if you constantly take a bigger than reasonable deficit. It will just take longer.

It's an eating goal - you try to meet it. 50 over is better than 100 below.

Would you be willing to miss your goal weight by 20% and say that's good enough?

[Caity]

I think it depends how often you are under, I’ve just started and it’s happened to me a few days and I figure that it’s better to be a little under than to force myself to eat something when I’m honestly not at all hungry.  For me it makes sense as kind of a buffer for if I go over by a little on another day, I won’t feel bad since it will eventually average out.  If you are consistently under the recommendation, or even just occasionally under but by a significant amount I would be concerned that overall it still averages out as under eating and then you can start not only impeding weight loss but also create health problems if you are drastically under eating.

If you are consistently under then I would start looking for a time in the day where even if you aren’t particularly hungry you could add a snack or small ways to up your calorie count during meals, for example you could add some protein powder to a morning cereal or start eating an extra egg if you’re making scrambled eggs for breakfast.  That way you’re making small changes and it won’t seem so much like you’re eating extra food and eating it all back instead it’s just a little extra fuel so you can keep up the awesome workouts.

[slysam]

Over or under is just in relation to the weight loss goal you chose and whatever fitbit estimates your calorie burn at. So I think it kind of depends how gentle or aggressive your weight loss goal is and how much weight you have to lose. And it may also matter how often you are under and by how much. Often, people who invest in and use tools like Fitbit have a goal to lose weight in a healthy way (if loss is their goal) and also to improve their health and/or fitness at the same time--as much as possible. (I say "as much as possible, because, losing weight an dimproving fitness can be slightly conflicting goals).  Is that you?

If so, you probably want the weight you lose to be fat. When people lose weight, they usually lose a mix of fat and lean mass (retained fluids, muscle, in some cases bone density, etc). There are things often advised to minimize the loss of lean mass--things like choosing a modest deficit relative to how much fat you have to lose, not do very low calorie or crash dieting, eating enough protein, exercising enough that the body gets the signal you need to keep your muscle and bone density (especially strenght training). By that, I think many people will want to eat some, most or all their exercise calories especially if they are pursuing a higehr deficit (I think of the 750 and 1000 calorie deficits as high).  If pursuing a 250 calorie deficit (the smallest), it may not matter as much but that depends how much under you are. I don't think it is a big deal being under every once in a while though. Also, chronically undereating might decrease metabolism. There is mixed information on this, but I kind of think why eat less than you have too for your goal? If your metabolism decreases, then it makes it harder to maintain. According to my nutrition professor in college, it sounded like this often happens due to losing lean mass while dieting (she was referring to the old school diets some women use where you only eat 1000 or 1200 calories and tend to eat "diet food" and they either don't exercise or they do a lot of aerobic exercise). But according to some sources it can be from aslo letting your body adapt to chronic undereating. You will see a lot of conflicting information though, I think metabolism might be a little complicated since the balance of various hormones is also involved as well as general health, activity, body composition (how much of your weight is lean mass i.e. everything that isn't fat), etc. There are some studies that even say people who sleep 7-9 hours a night burn more calories a day then people who sleep less. It isn't really explained why, one theory is that lack of sleep messes with hormones that effect metabolism. That was off topic, but an example of how a lot of details about the body are not yet fully understood. I am not sure about whether undereating, in itself, really causes slowed metabolism. But it seems people who chronically undereat do have slower metabolisms than they should.  I tend to err on the safer side in following a lot of health guidelines since a lot of this is really a personal benefit/risk allowance we have to make for our own bodies. 

[Heybales]

Sadly I think more and more studies are showing that creating too big a deficit, in essence undereating for your level of activity, can cause your body to become more metabolically efficient, adaptive thermogenesis.

Some obviously depends on genetics, and likely past stress on body, and current stress from other factors. But even those healthy except for overweight have shown it. How much easier with an unhealthy body.

Diet break like you mentioned so helpful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i_cmltmQ6A

http://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/truth-about-metabolic-damage

Here's the 6 month study in full if you want to dig in to it, I thought I'd point out some tidbits. This takes in to account reduced TDEE because of less weight, lower RMR/TDEE because of less muscle mass, ect.

 http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004377

Participants had to be between BMI 25-30, overweight category, but healthy otherwise. They were excluded if they smoked, exercised more than twice a week, were pregnant, lactating or post-menopausal, had a history of obesity (BMI>32), diabetes, cardiovascular disease, eating disorders, psychological disorders, substance abuse or regularly used medications except for birth control. So that may have a bearing in comparison.

Diet was 55 / 15 / 30 for C / P / F. 

CR (Calorie Restriction) was 25% deficit from TDEE, so not massive.

CR + EX (EXercise) was 12.5% deficit plus 12.5% calories burned in cardio exercise 5 x week, each session being 403-569 calories for 45-53 min (women and men difference).

LCD (Low Calorie Diet) was 890 cal/day until 15% of weight was loss, then back to maintenance calories by month 3, whatever it was then. That's a tad massive

DEXA scans for body composition of LBM (Fat Free Mass (FFM)) and Fat Mass (FM). Sedentary TDEE measurements in a metabolic chamber for 23 hrs. SMR (Sleeping Metabolic Rate (BMR)) measured chunk of night no movement.

Several formulas related to measured Sedentary TDEE at baseline based on all available stats, to compare down the road when stats changed.

At 3 month check, sedentary TDEE had dropped by the following amounts, below what the formulas would have indicated for new measured LBM and FM, and SMR. In other words, it lowered the expected amount, and an additional...

CR - 371

CREX - 2

LCD -  496

At 6 month check, there was some recovery to be had, and reminder the LCD was at maintenance this entire time from 3-6 months...

CR - 209

CREX - 129 over expected

LCD -  275

So notice that even after 3 months maintenence level eating, the initial LCD group still had a TDEE 275 below what was expected for their current LBM and FM. Perhaps more time at maintenance it would have recovered?

The CR group slightly recovered, but still 209 lower than expected. 

The CR+EX group actually had an increased TDEE.

Now that was Sedentary TDEE in the lab that was compared.

Daily TDEE with all activity was also compared to their SMR, TDEE/SMR for physical activity rate (PAR).

At month 3, CR and LCD had significant drops in PAR below what would have been expected for their current LBM and FM, by CR 350 and LCD 497, with CR-EX having none. At month 6, CR 215 and LCD 241, so again some recovery.

So the NEAT part of their day decreased as expected because of lower weight, but even more than expected because of less movement, resulting in lowered figures above.

So, that is how much their TDEE dropped along with their lower eating level and weight.

Now imagine during your weight loss, is your TDEE being lower going to help or hinder you for sticking to an eating level? May depend on how little you really want to eat.

They lost in total CR - 8.3, CR-EX - 8.4, LCD - 11.2.

So while the LCD did lose the most (in 3 months too compared to 6), their TDEE had only recovered from 496 to 275 below what it could be, perhaps more recovery was coming. So no wonder the first few months of maintenance could be the hardest, you have the most suppressed metabolism then.

And notice that even the great results of the CR-EX group, still meant 8.4 lbs in 6 months of dieting, with a 25% deficit in essence, 12.5 created by diet, with additional 12.5 by extra exercise. But no loss of TDEE, in fact increase, and mere decent level of cardio.

Other point to keep in mind - no more than 2 x exercise a week was being done prior - so they had a lot of room for improvement. No weight loss prior, so full burning metabolism. And in overweight range, not obese where these effects might not be so bad.

Thought it was interesting info to know. So when you are talking about metabolism slowing down, it's more correctly your TDEE slowing down with all the components of it to some degree, beyond what was going to happen anyway. And recovery to expected levels could be well over 3 months when at maintenance. They reference another study where it took 6 years to.

[LiveNLove]

Thank you so much for answering my question. I have lost 30 pounds the last 2 1/2 years but still have about 50 to lose.  There are quite a few studies, that's for sure!  This post made me realize that weight loss is NOT a quick fix and it demands patience.  Thanks again for all the input.