I was wondering if weightloss "really" works this way...for example. Today I ate 1900 calories and did an hour of cardio (30 min. running, 30 min. elliptical) and supposedly burned around 600 calories. So is it "like" eating 1300 calories today? (1900-600) My Dad always accounts for his calories that he burned working out but I never have. Does anyone do this? Can I really eat the extra calories I burned (if I am hungry)? Thanks!

We tend to not necessarily fit into a formula. Also, people often underestimate calories consumed (even packaging can be incorrect...and if you don't weigh then even measurements can be off) while at the same time, we overestimate how many calories we burn. To make things more annoying....if you say burn 100 calories from running a mile, you would have burned 20 of those calories just sitting around at home, so really, the net calories burned are lower so you wouldn't want to eat those calories. As a rule, I don't factor my workouts into my calories for consumption. I think it's a slippery slope.

The machines grossly overestimate calories burned. I don't count calories burned through exercise, never have. I feel like I would start making excuses and slide into bad habits if I did.

I use myfitnesspal and they give you your daily allotment of calories and encourage you to eat back your exercise cals. My daily goal of cals right now is close to 1400. I do eat back my exercise cals, though, I DO NOT go by what the machine says...I go by what my heart monitor says and even then I try to round down. Roughly. If I don't eat back my exercise cals I'd be netting under 1000 cals every day and that's just too low for me.
I have lost about 20 lbs so far since taking on this method...and rather quickly compared to not eating your exercise cals.
Honestly I'd just have to recommend that you figure out what works for your body. For me, eating back exercise cals work. For others, it doesn't.

Well IMHO it does work that way, at least for me. I am supposed to be consuming 1200 or less per day for a goal of losing 1.5 pounds a week. I have not once hit a calorie intake that low since beginning my quest for health and weight loss. I typically eat 1500 but have highs of 1800 in a day. I basically am working out for my dinner. I account for calories after my lunch/afternoon snack and then figure out how much I have to burn at the gym to offset whatever I have planned for dinner, usually around 450. To be fair, I carefully account for my servings (at minimum I assume I am eating 1 and a half servings of anything and I think that is a good estimate) and fit in 1 or 2 10-20 minute walks, trips up and down 5 flights of stairs, and other ways to ramp up my heart beat during the day without counting those in fitness usually. 35 lbs in 4 months suggests that I am losing right around 1.5 lbs a week as I calculated. So I am happy with that method.

I know it's none of my business, especially since you have clearly been successful thus far, but I've always been told that going under 1200 for women is a big no-no. Curves always told us that if we were going to hit 1200 that we should do so for no more than a week at a time. I can't honestly say I've followed that bit of advice - I've been hitting between 1200 and 1375 for weeks - but my trainer also said never to go under 1200 so that's one piece of advice I've always followed.

Just throwing that out there. =)

I never add calories "burned off" during workouts to my daily eating allotment, because those workouts are already factored into my "moderately active" lifestyle, which allows me to eat about 2,000 calories per day. If I were to "count" workout calories, I could also justify counting walking calories, folding-laundry calories, vacuuming calories, etc. To me it's all just movement -- part of being awake.

Freelance

To add to the whole 1200 calorie thing. I tend to calorie cycle.

I routinely go under 1200 calories for several days at a time (say 3-4 days) and then I cycle up to the 1200-1500 calorie range.

It's always on those higher days that I have a whoosh and lose a pound or two. But I don't get those whooshes nearly as fast if I don't put in a couple really low days to make it happen.

That's just me, and I know so many people are paranoid about going under 1000 calories, I rarely say anything about it on here.

But our bodies are machines and chemical factories. You don't have to fill your car up with gas everyday for it to run. It saves the gas you put in it one day, and will use it the next to keep going. I promise, my body has plenty of fuel in it, to go for a few days if I gave it nothing.

Yes, I know about the whole starvation thing, but I've read a lot of literature and that stuff takes a lot more than a couple low calorie days to kick in. We are talking survival stuff, and that is not where many of us are at.

Just wanted to throw out there, that there are plenty of people that cycle with under 1200 calories and do just fine on that. It's not a freak out "I need to grab a candy bar moment" if you find your calories are a tad lower than expected.

When I counted calories I didn't count my exercise calories into the mix. I figured they were like a bonus burn and since calorie counting in general isn't very precise (both intake and expenditures) I just let it ride.

Well, I didn't get the impression that she was wanting to cycle days, it sounded to me like she wanted to stay under 1200 for a 1.5 lb. loss a week until she hit her goal. It's not like I'm always over 1200 myself, if I don't feel well or I'm not hungry I don't eat (like yesterday I barely hit 1100 and that was due to a last minute craving for VFusion or I would have been under 1000), but I agree that the info about starvation seems a little inaccurate. I was told I'd go into starvation mode on 1200 calories and it's been weeks...still losing, not tired, not sick. I just tend to cringe when people say, "I'm going to eat less than 1200 a day", that gets down to so little food or forcing yourself to eat more veggies to fill up, it seems awfully restrictive and painful to keep up long term.

Also, what people forget to take into account sometimes is difference in bodies. You're 5'0", the OP has 10 inches on you, she's quite a great deal taller. 1200 might work perfectly fine for you due in large part to your actual size - but for someone who is hitting on 6 feet tall, that might not be the case.

I typically burn between 1,000 and 1,200 calories a day when I exercise—and I grossly underestimate my burn to compensate for my fitness level and the inaccuracy of activity calculators. I work out three times a week, and on those days, like every day of the week, I eat between 1,500 and 1,700 calories when I am losing weight, and average about two pounds a week lost. I lose consistently that way. I've never stalled because my net calories are too low. I figure I lose about a pound through exercise and another pound through eating less (because I still lose weight on 1,500 calories even if I don't exercise at all).

In the summer I burn more like 1,600 calories per workout and I still eat the same way if I'm in weight-loss mode.

When it comes to starvation mode, don't believe the hype. It's not what you think and we all have different sorts of reactions to very low calorie diets. You need to be careful about staying too low, for too long though. There are some recent studies that show that the calories you do put in you will be stored as fat and you will burn off your lean mass. In essence you become a "skinny fat" person. Healthy weight loss rates are unique to each of us.

As others have said, calorie counting is only an approximation. You can't get too focused on exact numbers, they're just not that accurate. You'll have to do some ball-parking and lots of experimentation to find what works for you. As a general rule, if it works for you then do it. But you also have to give things time to work. You can't just try something for a week or two and expect to know what sort of results you're going to get. It doesn't work that way. If eating your exercise calories back gets you the results you are looking for, then by all means do that. However, if it's not working for you then you are either overestimating calories burned or underestimating calorie intake or both. You have to have a caloric deficit to lose weight. Period. What sort of deficit you need will depend on a number of individual factors.

An interjection: the 1200 calorie thing isn't about starvation mode, it's about nutrition. The idea is that you can't meet your body's nutritional needs on less than 1200 calories a day--of course you will survive the odd day here or there on fewer than 1200 calories a day, but very low calorie diets are dangerous to do unsupervised. That said, I imagine smaller people can handle life on fewer calories than taller people.

Personally, I tend to think that the strict 'don't eat back exercise calories' position is a bit misguided. Long term success with weight maintenance means finding an equilibrium between calories in and calories out--between eating and exercise. I'm off the wagon at the moment, but generally I try to find a calorie range that can support my activity and feed my workouts. That's not quite the same as directly 'eating back' calories, but it does figure the impact of exercise on my caloric needs and deficit.

I was actually told, at least once (although maybe more than that), that eating ~1200 calories would push me into starvation mode. Another person told me that due to my size I could eat that low if I wanted and that starvation mode is something your body goes into as a result of something much more extreme. Given how I feel and how much I've been eating I tend to agree with that, I still just consider 1200 my baseline. Not as in if I'm under I'll be upset but I don't shoot for under that. I feel I'm eating a fair amount of food, I'm not too restricted, and I'm not finding it too hard to live on a day to day basis...anything under that would be rough, IMO, especially since I, personally, don't have access to nearly as much food as some others do. I am limited to a small fridge, a tiny freezer, and a microwave. That's it...

I really believe that starvation mode is a total myth.

Like another poster said. It becomes very difficult to fulfill all your nutrition requirements on a diet that low. I've lost well, and quickly on less.... but, it's not a good idea long term and you have to be VERY careful about where you get your calories.

IMHO... it's no worse for your body to eat 800 calories of quality nourishing food than it is to eat 1500 calories of filler.... many people disagree with me... but my experience has shown me that you don't gain weight eating too little... you gain it eating too much of the wrong kinds of foods for YOU. Every person is different and in time you'll become an expert on your own weightloss. THAT is the key to being successful. Finding what works for YOU .