Ok so this "Calories in vs. Calories out" thing-- like, I get it that you should get exercise..... But does that phrase mean that if I eat 1500 calories/day, I should be active enough to burn 1500+ calories?... that seems a little intense to me.
Is it enough to just burn ~some~ calories? (I mean, it has been enough to do just that for me for the past couple of years..)

I feel like this is a super silly question, but can someone help explain it to me?
Thanks!

You are going to burn most of those calories in just supporting the normal function of your body. This is referred to as your Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR). This is the number of calories you would burn if you stayed in bed all day. This number can be different based on you height, age, % lean body mass.

You are also going to burn calories just performing the normal day to day functions. If you were a housekeeper you would likely burn more calores then if you sat at a desk and computer all day.

If we take exercise out of the equation then in order to lose weight you need to create a calorie deficit between the number of calories you eat and the number of calories you naturally burn just by being alive and doing your normal stuff.

Rather then just eat fewer calories, most people prefer to create the calorie deficit by a combination of eating fewer calories and exercise which burn additional calories.

There are many more reasons and benefits why the combination of reduced calories and increased exercise is the best scenario but I will save that for another converssation.

Lori

Some calories you burn just by everyday living. Although I'm not sure how much. I'm sure others know better.

If you go into Fitday.com and put in your current weight and your lifestyle (sedentary, office worker, etc.), under reports (Calories Burned) it will tell you how many calories you average, just living. For 177 pounds and office work, it shows I burn 1485 (basal) and 965 (lifestyle). I keep my calories between 1400 and 1700 and have a deficit. As I increase exercise, my deficit is greater, although I may need to increase calories to support the activity.

As everyone else has said, you need a certain number of calories just to *exist*. Breathing, walking, talking, even sleeping ... uses energy and therefore burns calories. For many people ~1500 calories is the base they need just to sustain those basic functions (depends on your weight, age, etc.).

Then there are the calories you burn as part of your daily life - as someone else said, if you work at a computer, sitting there typing will burn some calories, but not as many as the mom of a toddler who is always running around. And mom won't burn as many calories as the guy building the highrise downtown.

THEN ... on top of that are the calories you burn in intentional exercise.

If you want to lose weight, you have to burn 3500 additional calories for every pound you want to lose.

So for example say my daily living/working calorie requirements are 2100.
I eat 1500 ... that means I'm burning 600 calories a day more than I'm eating.
Then I workout 4 days a week and burn 400 ish calories each time.
That means each week I burn 5800 calories a week - or a little more than 1.5 lbs worth.

Of course it's not entirely that linear ... there are other things that affect whether you lose weight over hte course of a week, including water retention, etc. But over time, it works: burn more calories than you eat.

.

OOOOHHH Kay this makes so much more sense!!!
Because I thought I got it, and I always thought it was so funny to see "napping" under exercise on dailyplate... But I guess if you're counting every little bit of (in)activity, you could see an actual deficit!!!

I was getting worried because my deficit from normal exercise is only about 500-700 calories in a day, and I think I'm trying to stay around 1650...

Thank you, everyone, for making this so much clearer!!