I use engine braking for the past 70k miles still little wear on the clutch. Change brake as I change tires.

 

Engine braking was used on older vehicles (cars and bikes) as old drum brakes didn't brake all that much and, moreover, didn't stand up to much fatigue.
Modern brakes are capable of great braking force. The limit is the ability of the tire to transmit that force to the ground, i.e: the grip of the tire.
Modern brakes are strong enough to lock the tire. So, no reason to do engine braking in the first place.
Anyway, no, engine braking shouldn't suck ANY oil, unless there's something badly wrong in the engine.

Slowing down is another thing. You let the bike slow down nice and easy, then you stop it with brakes, that uses engine braking in the softest way. It's actually not "braking" but slowing down.

 

+1 - Oil usage associated with decel is typically valve seals not rings.

 

Slowing down and braking, whats the difference?

 

Riding the twisties for three days in the mountains of WV and I never lost a drop of oil. Used engine braking much more than brakes.

 

How quickly you stop.

 

Did you ever notice that a bike is NOT an 18 wheeler?
It's more like... a two wheeler!
Trucks have special system that provide good engine braking, and they need it for a variety of reasons, mass being the first.

 

Well... yes and no. Idling in high gear to the stop line saves a lot of fuel. You should keep the higher gear until the engine comes to minimum.
When the wheels pull the engine the cutoff, well, cuts off fuel, and the engine actually doesn't consume any.
You then downshift to the next lower gear, again until you are at minimum, then you brake to stop while you downshift le last gears. Downshifting with a stopped bike is not good for the transmission.

As said, there is no reason to use engine braking, as the brakes have all the power needed to stop the bike. Moreover, while engine brake is grossly modulable, brakes can be operated with great finesse to balance the load between front and rear wheels, getting a far better control of the bike.
Engine braking can be used when riding with complete ease, and slowing down on a long, open road.
Contrary to what others have said, downshifting does NO HARM to the clutch, provided you do it the RIGHT way.
That is, shifting AND revving up the engine as needed to match the wheel speed. On cars with a traditional "H" transmission the best way is doing double declutch (or heel-and-toe if braking into a bend). Few people know how to do it properly today. On a bike luckily isn't necessary, as it has a sequential transmission.
Just shift and rev up as needed. It's easy to learn how much.
Releasing the clutch puts almost no load at all on the clutch. It's then the engine which brakes. As said, it's best to do it to save fuel, letting it rev down almost to minimum before downshifting again.
You HAVE to rev up, or you risk locking your rear tire.
Easy, simple.
To brake, and I mean not when you have to slow down, but when you need to BRAKE, you pull BOTH levers.

Engine braking on modern vehicles has NO PLACE. Tests show that it actually WORSEN your braking space as the brakes have to deal also with slowing down the engine, as if the bike wasn't enough.
So, when braking hard clutch must be instantly disengaged.

 

By the same token then, according to your logic, during normal riding conditions, acceleration (or even just maintaining a steady speed against air resistance, rolling resistance, etc) generates excessive wear on the engine, transmission, primary chain, and final drive belt.

 

I always use the engine brake and bike doesn't use a drop of oil. Would rather save the real brakes for when really needed.