Calories in - Eating back calories from exercise
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
LosinMama1966 wrote: »I have a question. I have set my daily calories at 1450 because 1200 was too low for me and I wasn't losing any weight.
Your logging is broken. Fix that first before worrying about eating back exercise calories.-1 -
This content has been removed.
-
LosinMama1966 wrote: »
this is what everyone on MFP needs to come around to! It's all about eating as much as you can while losing at a steady rate so that you are not abusing your body and to ensure an easy transition into maintenance. Plus it's much easier to maintain a calorie deficit when you are not being overly restrictive!elisa123gal wrote: »just eat them all back for two weeks and see it you lose. if not.. then eat half back..and see if you lose.. so on and so forth.
best to try to eat them back and serif you lose..then you get to eat more and still lose..and that is what you want…so you won't be stuck eating close to nothing to maintain.
I won't eat if I'm not hungry...no matter if I need to eat those calories or not. I won't stuff myself and make myself miserable. Tonight I finished at 1409 regular calories and didn't eat back any of my exercise calories and I am fine...not hungry at all.
One of the problems with simply going based off of hunger cues is that.. clearly they can be inaccurate gauges for what your body actually needs. I've seen plenty of people talk about eating very low calorie levels and saying they are not hungry. The body does adapt, so it makes sense that eating few calories might not make someone hungry.
The problem with not eating back exercise calories, if one is using a net calorie intake method, is that your body is not getting the proper nutrition it needs.
As a simple example, let's say someone needs 2000 calories net to maintain their weight, and to lose 1lb/week about 1600 calories will be a good starting point. But this person instead eats only 1300. This is already likely too large of a deficit - 700 calories! Now if the person starts exercising and needs on average 2200 calories a day to maintain weight but is only eating 1300 EVERY single day, that is 900 calories below their needs, or about a 40% deficit. Which is not at all recommended.
It's fairly easy to increase calorie intake without significantly affecting hunger, often by either tweaking macronutrients or by eating more calorie-dense foods since higher volume tends to decrease hunger. You also said you just increased your intake a bit, so of course you're not entirely used to this amount yet. You may find that after a few weeks you start feeling hungry again, especially on workout days when you are not reaching your proper intake.
Basically, if you don't want to eat back exercise calories then you should calculate your caloric needs while including your exercise activity levels. I.e. your TDEE, which means that your daily intake will be composed of both exercise and non-exercise activity. which means you'd be eating a consistent amount daily. To not eat an amount that is likely needed by your body makes it a lot harder to further reduce calories as you reach your goal since you will have so few calories to work with. And many people who eat too low calorie while losing weight have issues going into maintenance. The idea of eating as much as you can while losing weight means setting up reasonable deficit goals and meeting those goals as often as possible. It isn't about stuffing your face, as that defeats the purpose of a deficit.0 -
LosinMama1966 wrote: »LosinMama1966 wrote: »I have a question. I have set my daily calories at 1450 because 1200 was too low for me and I wasn't losing any weight.
Your logging is broken.
Actually it's not...but thanks!
Yes, it is.
Good luck.
-1 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
LosinMama1966 wrote: »LosinMama1966 wrote: »LosinMama1966 wrote: »I have a question. I have set my daily calories at 1450 because 1200 was too low for me and I wasn't losing any weight.
Your logging is broken.
Actually it's not...but thanks!
Yes, it is.
Good luck.
I know it's not...and I don't need well wishes from you.
You're wrong, so yes, you do.
Good luck.-1 -
This content has been removed.
-
LosinMama1966 wrote: »LosinMama1966 wrote: »LosinMama1966 wrote: »LosinMama1966 wrote: »I have a question. I have set my daily calories at 1450 because 1200 was too low for me and I wasn't losing any weight.
Your logging is broken.
Actually it's not...but thanks!
Yes, it is.
Good luck.
I know it's not...and I don't need well wishes from you.
You're wrong, so yes, you do.
Good luck.
wow...just go away...and when I've lost weight with the way I'm doing this, then you can "eat your words"...smh
You aren't going to lose the weight doing what you're doing.
But as you seem determined to not listen to experienced advice - even though you are failing on your own - I will now check out of here.
Cheers!
-1 -
LosinMama1966 wrote: »LosinMama1966 wrote: »
this is what everyone on MFP needs to come around to! It's all about eating as much as you can while losing at a steady rate so that you are not abusing your body and to ensure an easy transition into maintenance. Plus it's much easier to maintain a calorie deficit when you are not being overly restrictive!elisa123gal wrote: »just eat them all back for two weeks and see it you lose. if not.. then eat half back..and see if you lose.. so on and so forth.
best to try to eat them back and serif you lose..then you get to eat more and still lose..and that is what you want…so you won't be stuck eating close to nothing to maintain.
I won't eat if I'm not hungry...no matter if I need to eat those calories or not. I won't stuff myself and make myself miserable. Tonight I finished at 1409 regular calories and didn't eat back any of my exercise calories and I am fine...not hungry at all.
One of the problems with simply going based off of hunger cues is that.. clearly they can be inaccurate gauges for what your body actually needs. I've seen plenty of people talk about eating very low calorie levels and saying they are not hungry. The body does adapt, so it makes sense that eating few calories might not make someone hungry.
The problem with not eating back exercise calories, if one is using a net calorie intake method, is that your body is not getting the proper nutrition it needs.
As a simple example, let's say someone needs 2000 calories net to maintain their weight, and to lose 1lb/week about 1600 calories will be a good starting point. But this person instead eats only 1300. This is already likely too large of a deficit - 700 calories! Now if the person starts exercising and needs on average 2200 calories a day to maintain weight but is only eating 1300 EVERY single day, that is 900 calories below their needs, or about a 40% deficit. Which is not at all recommended.
It's fairly easy to increase calorie intake without significantly affecting hunger, often by either tweaking macronutrients or by eating more calorie-dense foods since higher volume tends to decrease hunger. You also said you just increased your intake a bit, so of course you're not entirely used to this amount yet. You may find that after a few weeks you start feeling hungry again, especially on workout days when you are not reaching your proper intake.
Basically, if you don't want to eat back exercise calories then you should calculate your caloric needs while including your exercise activity levels. I.e. your TDEE, which means that your daily intake will be composed of both exercise and non-exercise activity. which means you'd be eating a consistent amount daily. To not eat an amount that is likely needed by your body makes it a lot harder to further reduce calories as you reach your goal since you will have so few calories to work with. And many people who eat too low calorie while losing weight have issues going into maintenance. The idea of eating as much as you can while losing weight means setting up reasonable deficit goals and meeting those goals as often as possible. It isn't about stuffing your face, as that defeats the purpose of a deficit.
I had 3 meals and 3 snacks...and all my water...I don't need to eat anymore...omg...
Eating 6x a day doesn't mean you are more nourished on the same calories. I eat 3x a day (4x if you include my protein powder post-workout) and always hit my net calorie intake. I just eat very large meals. If I were to eat 6x a day, it would still be the same amount of calories, although I'd actually feel more hungry (I need at least 500 cals per meal I've found, otherwise I get hungry quickly).
What I and at least one other poster are trying to demonstrate is that when eating at a calorie deficit, it is important to still be properly feeding your body and not exceeding a healthy deficit percentage. Usually 20% is the max deficit range recommended. NOt eating exercise calories back further increases this deficit. I do recommend looking at the calorie intake links I have on my profile, and just see how their net estimations compare to your MFP (custom?) set intake amount/the amount you net daily. The links (other than scooby's, which I don't recommend for this specific task actually) will give you an estimate for maintenance calories, so deduct 20% for a 1lb/week loss, which is a very sustainable goal.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
LosinMama1966 wrote: »I have a question. I have set my daily calories at 1450 because 1200 was too low for me and I wasn't losing any weight. I have started exercising and logging that exercise. I know I need to burn 3,500 calories to lose a pound. I've also seen where people "eat back" their calories they have exercised off.
Is this a good practice/habit or should I just NOT eat those calories back and look at my net calories and try to keep them at 1450 calories in a day.
Any help and/or explanation would be greatly appreciated.
Please Read:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10589/for-those-confused-or-questioning-eating-your-exercise-calo
Oh and for reference, I'm 5'4.5", (177lbs) and am currently averaging a total intake of about 1908 calories per day and losing 1lb per week.
0 -
I was also confused about eating exercise cals or not,but I read this article and I understood that if my goal is to eat 1400cals and lose 200cals from exercise it's like I ate 1200cals. I don't want to eat that low so I eat that 200 to stay at my goal. I hope this article whould help! http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/eating-back-calories-burned/0
-
LosinMama1966 wrote: »tracylbrown839 wrote: »LosinMama1966 wrote: »so...today my goal is 1450 calories. I've already logged 1158 and then I've logged 333 exercise calories burned leaving me with a current 825 net calories. I'm not done with today yet. Do I need to just go with my regular calories logged and make that 1450 and log 500 exercise calories burned and not worry about my net calories?
A lot depends on how you are measuring your calorie burn.
Depending on your present height and weight, 1450 to 1500 isn't too low a calorie budget. If you eat those 333, in addition to your allotted 1450, you have to have a fairly decent total burn on your day to create the deficit necessary to lose weight. (Again, some of this depends on your present weight)
One solution is to invest in a fitbit or other tracking device to provide fairly reliable data on you daily calorie burn.
However, if that's either not an option, or doesn't interest you, six weeks or so will tell the tale of whether you have created a deficit, or not.
Limited budget so can't invest in anything now. I DIDN'T eat those extra calories back tonight and I don't think I will eat the extra calories for a while to see what happens. Only time will tell.
I'm 5'5" and I weigh 176 right now.
So, guessing your age a bit, your BMR (basal metabolic rate) is 1,469. (This number will be "pretty close") This means that your budget is set a little bit low and I think you're going to find that maintaining a calorie program on a daily basis that's actually below your BMR is quite difficult to do.
It's not a bad rule of thumb to consider eating about 200 calories above your BMR, which for you would be 1,669 and then not eating any exercise calories. This provides enough nutrition, especially if you eat sensible foods, to run your body well, while providing a deficit for gradual and healthy weight loss.
The truth is, that every day is not the same, and we're not always the same amount hungry, as pitifully obvious as this sounds. So, it's good to have a "range" in mind, as a lifestyle guide to try to adopt. In this way, MFP really becomes a learning tool that allows people to understand their calorie balance a bit better.
The low end of that should be your BMR, weight loss, about 200 above BMR and an upper end for days when you've been really busy or active, about 500 above BMR - Unless you partake in long distance sports or really intense training and live an active lifestyle where you move around a fair bit.
For you, this would translate to 1,469, and 1,969. This also "fits" with normal averages for women. Most women of average height and weight are going to burn "approximately", and this is approximate - about 2,000 calories a day.
So, ballpark, without a device to really start to get a handle on how active you on a general, daily basis, go for eating
Not less than 1,469 on days where you are not too hungry
1,669 - for most days
2,000 - as an "upper limit" - even at parties and special occasions, or on days where you are more hungry.
This kind of rule of thumb will take away the guesswork of how accurate, or not, your activity calories are. So, if I were in your shoes, I'd just concentrate on what my total calorie consumption is and keep it within those ranges. ( Even with that, there is always going to be a day, here or there, where you are not hungry - perhaps because you've got the flu - or a day when you're extra hungry - or very special occasion - like Christmas or something. As long as these are the minority - don't sweat it)
Hope this helps.
0 -
Everyone is different but I found that I was earning about 400-500 almost every day after I started walking daily (I have a fitbit and it tells MFP how many calories I burned while walking). I found my "happy place" by upping my calories some and now I only eat back half to 2/3rds of the calories earned by special exercise like my water aerobics or if I go way over my step goal for the day.
I was losing too fast so I raised my calories to get back closer to my goal. I want to lose 1 lb a week. I was losing closer to 2 for a while and am now back to losing about 1.3. Losing fast is great, but it isn't necessarily the best for the long run.
0 -
Just some food for thought on those "exercise calories".
The main or majority of a person's daily calorie burn comes from their Basal Metabolic Rate - the amount of calories that your body will burn, just at rest. How accurate is BMR? "Fairly accurate". It does get less accurate as a person gets more and more obese but it's a pretty good place to start and is accurate for a very large percentage of the population within about 10%.
So, let's use me as an example: I'm 51 years old. Normal weight. I'm 5'5" and weigh 145, with a monthly natural weight fluctuation of about 3 pounds, up or down (these are changes in water and a body is comprised of about 65% water). My weight is stable and has been for quite a few years.
My BMR is 1,274. This means that just "at rest", I burn about 53.08 calories an hour - doing nothing. Just existing.
Now, if I go out and walk for a mile at 3mph (which is a nice, brisk pace), a heart monitor or tracking device is going to tell me that I burned about 67 calories to walk that mile, and it's going to take me 20 minutes. (running burns about approximately 100 calories a mile)
Let's say that I eat my lunch quickly and go for walk at lunch, walking 3 miles in a hour. I'm really proud of myself, "I took a 1 hour break at lunch and walked 3 miles at a good clip", and I enter an extra 201 calories into my program, MFP or other, feeling really good about myself. (67 cals a mile x 3 = 201). To, me, it "feels" like I did a lot. Walking for a full hour at 3mph is a decent sort of thing to do, and it took me some dedicated time to do it.
Did I do the right thing? Did I burn "an extra" 201 calories by taking that full, hour long walk?
No. I didn't.
The truth is that my heart monitor or my GPS tracking device, or that "counter" at the gym gives a "total calorie burn". Yes, it's true that I did burn 201 calories walking for 1 full hour at 3 mph. However, this "total" includes my BMR. Heart rate monitors, gym treadmill devices and most other things that measure your calorie burn, measure your "total burn", and some devices even do this quite generously.
So, the truth is that if I had just stayed at my desk, or lay down on the floor for a nap, I would have burned 53.08 calories in that hour, anyway. By taking a 1 hour walk, instead, I burned 201. The "difference" is 147.92. Which means that it only took 147.92 calories to "power that walk".
What's that in terms of food? Probably a small yogurt and a half a banana. 147 calories is not a lot of food.
The truth is, people are designed to be "fairly efficient". This is one reason why we have survived, over time. This is another reason why people often say that it's really hard to out-exercise a bad diet. And it's another reason why people, more often than not, over-estimate their calorie burn, entering every little activity that they do, and then eating those calories back (which I know you are not doing).
So, with regard to my prior post. Use your BMR as a "starting point" because it's a "fairly accurate" number of how much fuel you need - doing nothing. Then, add "a little bit" to provide fuel for activity" because the real truth of the matter is that it doesn't require much extra fuel to do most activities until a person becomes pretty fit and able to do quite a bit. (As another example, I only burn about 200 calories, total, going for a 45 minute bike ride, wearing a heart monitor, and biking at about 10mph, up and down hills and undulating terrain. I'm pretty efficient. Granted, I'm not that big. But neither am I small. I'm "normal" sized.)
People go wrong with their exercise calories all the time - why? - because it took them effort to do it - so they tend to value it more highly (in terms of calories) than it's really worth.
Do not misinterpret this post, however, to mean that exercise is not valuable. It is an absolutely integral part of good health! And your health benefits in so many ways from taking that walk at lunch. 0 -
LosinMama1966 wrote: »I have a question. I have set my daily calories at 1450 because 1200 was too low for me and I wasn't losing any weight. I have started exercising and logging that exercise. I know I need to burn 3,500 calories to lose a pound. I've also seen where people "eat back" their calories they have exercised off.
Is this a good practice/habit or should I just NOT eat those calories back and look at my net calories and try to keep them at 1450 calories in a day.
Any help and/or explanation would be greatly appreciated.
Ok a quick question, when you say 1200 was too low for you and you weren't losing weight do you mean that you couldn't stick to 1200 and kept overeating or that you didn't lose weight eating at 1200?
If its the latter then you should concentrate on logging accuracy first then worry about exercise calories.
Here is a link to a really helpful post that should be required reading in my opinion
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1234699/logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide/p10 -
Bottom line is- you have to find what works for you and do it. Everybody is different.
I always eat back some of my exercise calories. I try to leave a little wiggle room in case my food calories are over my estimates or my exercise calories are under my estimates. (I don't weigh my food and I don't have a heart rate monitor.)
When I had my activity level set at Sedentary (I have a desk job), I logged most activities. As I've become more active, I changed my activity level to lightly active (which gives me more calories) and I don't log every activity. I walk my dog almost every day. I walk to the corner coffee store or around the block with co-workers. I park in the farthest spot I can find from the door when I go shopping. I don't log those activities anymore. I've lost 66 lbs and kept it off for almost a year, so obviously, this works for me. It might not work for you.
You have to make sure you are logging everything you eat, good or bad.0 -
I am trying to lose weight. I just started not eating my calories burned. When I track my exercise for the day, I set it to one calorie so that it doesn't add the calories to my daily goal. But, I recommend do what's best for you.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
I use the calories allotted on MFP. Then I eat back exercise calories. I tried the TDEE method, but then I'd have days I had planned to exercise and didnt, so that didn't work for me.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
I track and log everything as accurately as I can. I use labels for food and I use heart rate monitors for exercising. My calories burned are consistently 10-20% lower than what MFP and the gym machines say I burned ( same goes for those "how many calories did I burn" sites). I will eat the number of calories that MFP says I can have in a day and then also eat back HALF of the calories that my HRM says I burned. I find that this helps fill me up so that I'm not hungry and I am still achieving my weight loss goals. It has worked really well for me and I would encourage you to try it as well. Remember, if you don't take in enough calories, your body will go into starvation mode and store everything because you are not taking in enough nutrition. Thus, you will not lose weight.
Based on the information above, I would encourage you to eat 1307 + 1/2 of the calories you burn with additional exercise (that is exercise that is NOT part of your regular day...such as gym time). I do a lot of walking in my job but include that in my TDEE. I do not include my running, swimming, biking, etc in that number. That is how I determine how many EXTRA calories I can have in a day. Hope that helps! Good luck0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I was wondering same thing, and now I know the answer. Thanks, LosinMama!0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Eat back at least half of your exercise calories burned if they're reasonable accurate (aka not MFP burn numbers). I eat 75-90% of my exercise calories back and I am steadily losing because the deficit of 3,500 calories/lb of fat is already built into the MFP equation.
It probably won't make any real difference if you don't eat back 100-200 calories burned here and there. However, if you're consistently exercising heavily, you will need to eat more to fuel your workouts. Otherwise your performance will suffer, you won't be getting enough protein/fat/carbs to meet the minimum needs of your exercise, you will take longer to recover from hard workouts, the list goes on.0 -
LosinMama1966 wrote: »enterdanger wrote: »I use the calories allotted on MFP. Then I eat back exercise calories. I tried the TDEE method, but then I'd have days I had planned to exercise and didnt, so that didn't work for me.
MFP says I should have 1200 calories...TOO LOW!!!!!
It does that if you set your weight loss goal at 2lbs a week and you're a woman. I set mine at 1lb week so I get 1440 calories before exercise. At 1200 calories, I get hangry even when eating back my exercise calories, and no one likes that.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions