Eating back exercise calories- will the exercise burn still count?
Replies
-
I don't think there are many people who are regularly exercising -- male or female -- that would need a calorie goal of 1,200 to lose weight. Most active people would be able to eat more than 1,200 and still be in a deficit.
Exactly you get to eat more because you are ACTIVE keyword
[/quote]
I go on walks and do body pump etc SO THAT I don't have to eat 1200 calories...cause it's not a lot of food. It's all in the perspective.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »
I guess I'm not understanding you...that's what pretty much most of us have been saying...so not quite sure who you are arguing with. Most of us are saying that with MFP you would eat back calories...that's how you account for that activity. It's still for fitness..understanding that fueling your fitness is important doesn't make it any less about your fitness.
Burning calories is a bi-product, not a purpose...in that regard, it can make weight management easier because you can eat more...but I don't go ride so that I can burn XXX calories or whatever...I'm out there training to be a better cyclist...I lift to be a better cyclist...I'm not particularly worried about burning whatever calories...I'm just training and following my programming.[/quote]
With those who say you don't need to eat back your exercise cals! Obviously if your account is set as active then you are fine without "using" those but if you set it as Sedentary and add whatever you burn (hrm) my initial suggestion was to eat at least half only because OP was wondering if it was ok...
0 -
Exercise always counts, be it for fitness or for calories. In a few instances, though, it may not help with weight loss. Essentially exercise counts and matters for fitness, to lose faster, to lose comfortably, to maintain eating more, or to gain less with a calorie surplus.
Look at the following examples, assuming a 2000 calorie maintenance without the exercise:
- You eat 1500 calories, you exercise for 500 calories(you aren't eating back exercise). Result: you lose 2 pounds a week creating faster loss (not recommended because you would be netting too low, especially for someone who is close to maintenance).
- You eat 2000 calorie, you exercise for 500 calories (basically having a 1500 allowance and eating back). Result: you lose 1 pounds a week despite not having to make any extreme changes to your diet, creating all of your deficit through exercise.
- You eat 1750 calories, you exercise for 250 calories, you don't eat back your exercise. Result: you lose 1 pound a week eating a reasonable amount of calories without having to go heavy on exercise.
- You eat 2500 calories, you exercise for 500 calories (basically having a 2000 allowance and eating back exercise). Result: you maintain weight despite eating more than usual.
- You eat 3000 calories, you exercise for 500 calories. Result: you gain 1 pound a week, which would have been 2 pounds a week without exercise.
Of course this is theoretical, some people experience an increase in appetite when they exercise. This means that someone who wants to go with option #2 keeping their food the same, but isn't counting calories to make sure they are eating at maintenance, may experience slower (if any) weight loss.
Whichever option you opt for, make sure you are eating enough not let your net calories (calories eaten minus exercise calories) get too low because that could be harmful to your body. You also need to make sure your net calories don't get too high if your goal is to lose weight. Keep in mind MFP is designed to let you eat back your exercise to keep your weight loss consistent with your original calorie choice.1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Also when you are a guy and burn thousands of cals just for being you is NOT the same as being a girl and burning around 2,000 a day, so is NOT that easy to create and maintain a deficit needed to lose just 1 lb
The amount that guys burn versus women is greatly exaggerated to the point of being laughable. Guys burn more because we tend to have more lean muscle and lean muscle has a metabolic cost to upkeep basically. Also guys tend to be larger (taller, heavier) which also has a caloric requirement. If you compared a man and a woman who where the same height and weight the guy would probably only have a TDEE maybe 100 calories more from the extra lean mass he'd probably have. Its really not that big of a difference. If you were comparing everything equal (height, weight, lean mass) between a woman and man they'd be the same. Having a penis doesn't make you burn more calories somehow.
My TDEE is high because I am active and I'm 6 foot tall, not because I am a man. Guys don't just get some sort of free pass, still have to work for it.
Ok, ok I might have exaggerated a little about you guys burning thousands of cals but still I don't think that you need to eat 1,200 cals a day only to lose 1 lb a week and I wonder if you had to do that, would you consider eating your burned exercise cals? Or that still just for fitness...Ha got you!
Including her exercise calories, my wife was losing about 1 Lb per week eating about 1800 calories per day...she's 5'2" and "oldish"...she maintains on around 2300...she runs 5-6 days per week and lifts once per week.
Ha...got you!
So she gets to eat more because she is Active therefore she eat back her excercise cals? Sorry I didn't get it...
0 -
@jax_006 When you start your journey on mfp, you tell mfp your age, height, weight, gender, activity level, weight loss end goal and weekly weight loss goal. As an example, I'll assume you wisely chose to lose 0.5 lb per week. MFP then uses all the information you gave to calculate your NEAT value, which resembles your TDEE value. One lb of fat contains approximately 3500 calories. One half of 3500 is 1750. One-seventh of 1750 is 250. MFP gives you a daily calorie limit which is 250 below your NEAT.
So, you have your calorie target and you start your journey. You have a strap-on heart rate monitor that syncs to MFP and after a hard workout you look at MFP and see that it's all updated. Your calorie target is higher than before, your macro targets are bigger, and there's a not telling you that you've earned an extra, for example, 500 calories from exercise.
Your 500 calories from exercise is, of course, 2x your planned 250 calorie deficit. You do not, however, wipe out your deficit by eating the exercise calories. MFP calculates your NEAT, which is an acronym. The first two letters stand for the words, "Non Exercise". When you log exercise ( here I am assuming that you set your activity level to "sedentary") your calorie burn for the day becomes your (NEAT + your exercise), which I'll call NEAT'. You can eat the 500 calories, and you will still be 250 calories below NEAT'.
I hope this helps.
For users who are not syncing exercise with a strap-on monitor, be aware that exercise burn values in the MFP database are often suspected of being too generous. In your case, it may be prudent to eat less than the full amount of credited exercise calories. Since rigorous testing of fitness machines has shown as much as a 40% error in burn calculation on some machines, it's a valid rule of thumb to limit yourself to eating back only half of your exercise calories.0 -
Pointless eating back calories if you're trying to lose weight
What if you are trying to lose weight while also pushing yourself to higher levels of fitness? You want to maintain a small deficit so you still have adequate fuel for pushing yourself hard during your workouts rather than just feeling exhausted by them.5 -
Then why not just up calories and use exercise to create a deficit rather than all this eat back your calories nonsensejanejellyroll wrote: »
Those two things are exactly the same thing, they are just viewed from two different angles. If you hate calling it "eat back your calories" and prefer calling it "eat to maintain and use exercise to create a deficit" thats fine, but its the same thing.5 -
Exactly you get to eat more because you are ACTIVE keyword
Yeah its somewhat semantic right...I'm just explaining whats going on in my head. I'm not active because I want a deficit, I'm active because I want to work on my fitness. I also want to lose weight but I view that as a seperate goal that just requires i maintain a steady but not overly agressive deficit.
I don't "like" the idea that I would exercise to make a deficit because it turns the purpose of exercise from fitness into basically punishment for an inability to control ones appetite. The first version I eat more because I am exercising, the second version I exercise because I ate more. In the end they are the same thing, but to me one is a much healthier attitude. But that is just my opinion.1 -
Pointless eating back calories if you're trying to lose weight
@FelonE1 What if someone has a calorie allowance of 1500 calories, say a -500 deficit, and they burn 1000 calories through exercise. If they didn't eat those back then they would be netting 500 calories and end up having a deficit of 1500 calories per day.
I predict burn out and a binge amongst other undesirable consequences would be in this persons future if they continued on this path...4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Yeah its somewhat semantic right...I'm just explaining whats going on in my head. I'm not active because I want a deficit, I'm active because I want to work on my fitness. I also want to lose weight but I view that as a seperate goal that just requires i maintain a steady but not overly agressive deficit.
I don't "like" the idea that I would exercise to make a deficit because it turns the purpose of exercise from fitness into basically punishment for an inability to control ones appetite. The first version I eat more because I am exercising, the second version I exercise because I ate more. In the end they are the same thing, but to me one is a much healthier attitude. But that is just my opinion.[/quote]
I guess it's just your priorities tat decide which way you see it. I HAVE to exercise (though I don't particularly mind it) so I can eat more than a toddler's portion 1 -
Oh, and one of the main reasons i exercise is so i can eat more. Sometimes i eat them all back, or 50% or none at all. But i know they are there if i need them.3
-
more than a toddler's portion
...I see what you did there, touche.
3 -
Then why not just up calories and use exercise to create a deficit rather than all this eat back your calories nonsensejanejellyroll wrote: »
Some people will exercise on a regular basis. Total Daily Energy Expenditure minus a % (for weight loss) works great for them.
But many people will not exercise on a regular basis. MFP (as designed) works well for these people. It says hey you're lazy....eat this many calories, or here's your "bonus" for being active today. It's an incentive for some people.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I don't "like" the idea that I would exercise to make a deficit because it turns the purpose of exercise from fitness into basically punishment for an inability to control ones appetite.
This is incredibly arbitrary and subjective. It's one of those things where you're arguing that your opinion is better than all the other opinions because it's yours.
Besides, everybody knows the purpose of exercise isn't for fitness. It's to pass time when you're bored. That's why they made bikes fun in the first place.
And on that note, why are you making exercise a punishment? Sex is a form of exercise for the gods' sake!1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I don't "like" the idea that I would exercise to make a deficit because it turns the purpose of exercise from fitness into basically punishment for an inability to control ones appetite.
This is incredibly arbitrary and subjective. It's one of those things where you're arguing that your opinion is better than all the other opinions because it's yours.
Besides, everybody knows the purpose of exercise isn't for fitness. It's to pass time when you're bored. That's why they made bikes fun in the first place.
And on that note, why are you making exercise a punishment? Sex is a form of exercise for the gods' sake!
Well...yeah, of course it is subjective and yeah I do think that my opinion is the better opinion, that is why its my opinion. If I thought my opinion was the worse of the two options why would it be my opinion? I feel anyways I have always made it clear in my posts that what I am saying is just how I feel about it and not the God's truth or anything. I also don't think I've suggested people who have opinions that are different than mine are somehow objectively "wrong".
As for the exercise-as-punshiment thing I'm pretty sure I was warning against having that sort of attitude, not supporting it.
The only thing objective here is that exercise expends caloric energy. The rest is subjective. Why you exercise, how you view exercise, what your goals are etc etc.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Also when you are a guy and burn thousands of cals just for being you is NOT the same as being a girl and burning around 2,000 a day, so is NOT that easy to create and maintain a deficit needed to lose just 1 lb
The amount that guys burn versus women is greatly exaggerated to the point of being laughable. Guys burn more because we tend to have more lean muscle and lean muscle has a metabolic cost to upkeep basically. Also guys tend to be larger (taller, heavier) which also has a caloric requirement. If you compared a man and a woman who where the same height and weight the guy would probably only have a TDEE maybe 100 calories more from the extra lean mass he'd probably have. Its really not that big of a difference. If you were comparing everything equal (height, weight, lean mass) between a woman and man they'd be the same.
Yes, but everything is almost never equal. More often, you get relationships like mine in which my husband burns 1000 calories more per day than I do if we are equally active (according to our FitBits). It takes me an extra 10,000+ steps per day to catch up.
Of course, he's 9 inches taller than me and 60 pounds heavier than me. And used to do the throwing based field events, so has a *lot* of lean mass. So it's not "because he's a guy". It's "because he's a big guy". But it still sometimes feels unfair.
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Oh, and one of the main reasons i exercise is so i can eat more. Sometimes i eat them all back, or 50% or none at all. But i know they are there if i need them.
YES I agree 100 %
1 -
I never eat back my exercise calories, but I am struggling daily to get my calorie intake up" not a big eater". My RMR is 1,900 calories and I'm lucky if I clear 1,600 daily which is not good when you eat under your resting metabolic rate your body can going to starvation mode and start storing fat...0
-
I don't think you should eat back calories. If you do then what's the purpose of your workout? Also, you can easily overestimate the amount of calories you need to eat back.0
-
dramafree69 wrote: »I never eat back my exercise calories, but I am struggling daily to get my calorie intake up" not a big eater". My RMR is 1,900 calories and I'm lucky if I clear 1,600 daily which is not good when you eat under your resting metabolic rate your body can going to starvation mode and start storing fat...
Good news! That doesn't happen! 2 -
wally2wiki wrote: »I don't think you should eat back calories. If you do then what's the purpose of your workout? Also, you can easily overestimate the amount of calories you need to eat back.
Does anyone have the "exercise calories again wtf" link and post it here? I cant find it!0 -
dramafree69 wrote: »I never eat back my exercise calories, but I am struggling daily to get my calorie intake up" not a big eater". My RMR is 1,900 calories and I'm lucky if I clear 1,600 daily which is not good when you eat under your resting metabolic rate your body can going to starvation mode and start storing fat...
Your RMR is 1900? How'd you calculate that. Just wondering because mine is around 1720 and I'm a 6' tall man. As for "starvation mode" where your body stores fat if you don't eat enough....that is a myth based on a misunderstanding of a real but rather inconsequential phenomenon known as adaptive thermogenesis which really only occurs under prolonged starvation conditions and has a negligible effect and an effect that has nothing to do with storing fat while starving.1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »wally2wiki wrote: »I don't think you should eat back calories. If you do then what's the purpose of your workout? Also, you can easily overestimate the amount of calories you need to eat back.
Does anyone have the "exercise calories again wtf" link and post it here? I cant find it!
I tried to find that a couple weeks ago and couldn't find it, I'm afraid it got sent to green pastures to play with its pals "sodium bicarbonate is toxic" "microwave = death box" and every "halp I'm addicted to sugar" thread.
I swore it was in the "I like old posts and I cannot lie" sticky but I was wrong apparently...0 -
Then they could just eat 2000 calories in the first placeChristine_72 wrote: »Pointless eating back calories if you're trying to lose weight
@FelonE1 What if someone has a calorie allowance of 1500 calories, say a -500 deficit, and they burn 1000 calories through exercise. If they didn't eat those back then they would be netting 500 calories and end up having a deficit of 1500 calories per day.
I predict burn out and a binge amongst other undesirable consequences would be in this persons future if they continued on this path...
0 -
Then they could just eat 2000 calories in the first placeChristine_72 wrote: »Pointless eating back calories if you're trying to lose weight
@FelonE1 What if someone has a calorie allowance of 1500 calories, say a -500 deficit, and they burn 1000 calories through exercise. If they didn't eat those back then they would be netting 500 calories and end up having a deficit of 1500 calories per day.
I predict burn out and a binge amongst other undesirable consequences would be in this persons future if they continued on this path...
Same but different :huh:1 -
Ok a lot of this seems convoluted but... If you have a calorie goal of 1500 and you exercise and burn off 500 calories. You *could* eat 2000 now (1500+500) and lose the original amount of weight planned or you could just leave those 500 calories alone, not eat them back, and lose some extra ounces (it would be as if you ate 1000 instead of 1500 since you worked the other 500 off AND did not eat them back). That's the idea. Obviously you can eat more calories if you burn more off, but also obviously if you eat them all back they will be gone again lol make sense?
Also, in this way, exercise IS for weight loss as well. Cardio (walking, tredmill, stairmaster) is for weight loss and some toning, while strength training (lifting weights, crunches, push ups, pull-ups, squats) is for strengthening muscles and toning your body to make it stronger. Some are kind of a blend of both, such as certain types of dancing.1 -
Then they could just eat 2000 calories in the first placeChristine_72 wrote: »Pointless eating back calories if you're trying to lose weight
@FelonE1 What if someone has a calorie allowance of 1500 calories, say a -500 deficit, and they burn 1000 calories through exercise. If they didn't eat those back then they would be netting 500 calories and end up having a deficit of 1500 calories per day.
I predict burn out and a binge amongst other undesirable consequences would be in this persons future if they continued on this path...
Tomato, tomAto. That's basically the same thing.
Why the "eating back" method is more appropriate for some people than picking a higher calorie allowance representative of activity level and sticking to it (the TDEE method) is that because some people don't have a consistent activity level.
My sedentary maintenance is around 1950 calories. I have my daily allowance set at 1450 calories. Yesterday I did 400 something calories in exercise and ate them back bringing my whole intake to 1900 something calories. If I had my allowance set to 1900 in the first place and then had days where I didn't exercise at all for extended periods or days where I exercised for a 1000 calories I would be eating either too much or too little and my weight loss would be unpredictable. Now if if I had a habit of doing the same activities burning the same calories day in and day out, I would just set my allowance to 1900 calories and forget about exercise calories.
No matter how much I eat, when I net under 1000 for an extended time even if eating 2000 calories I get negative hormonal side effects that push my to eat everything in the house. I'm talking 4000+ calories. Hormonal hunger sucks... I really really hate it. That's why I'm very careful to never net under 1000 for more than 2 days in a row if I happen to be really not hungry. I just make calorie bomb smoothies when not hungry to keep my net calories reasonable. On days I have a normal appetite I eat some of my higher calorie favorites and enjoy every bite while losing consistently without having to deal with hormonal hunger more often than I should.6 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »
Then they could just eat 2000 calories in the first placeChristine_72 wrote: »Pointless eating back calories if you're trying to lose weight
@FelonE1 What if someone has a calorie allowance of 1500 calories, say a -500 deficit, and they burn 1000 calories through exercise. If they didn't eat those back then they would be netting 500 calories and end up having a deficit of 1500 calories per day.
I predict burn out and a binge amongst other undesirable consequences would be in this persons future if they continued on this path...
Tomato, tomAto. That's basically the same thing.
Why the "eating back" method is more appropriate for some people than picking a higher calorie allowance representative of activity level and sticking to it (the TDEE method) is that because some people don't have a consistent activity level.
My sedentary maintenance is around 1950 calories. I have my daily allowance set at 1450 calories. Yesterday I did 400 something calories in exercise and ate them back bringing my whole intake to 1900 something calories. If I had my allowance set to 1900 in the first place and then had days where I didn't exercise at all for extended periods or days where I exercised for a 1000 calories I would be eating either too much or too little and my weight loss would be unpredictable. Now if if I had a habit of doing the same activities burning the same calories day in and day out, I would just set my allowance to 1900 calories and forget about exercise calories.
No matter how much I eat, when I net under 1000 for an extended time even if eating 2000 calories I get negative hormonal side effects that push my to eat everything in the house. I'm talking 4000+ calories. Hormonal hunger sucks... I really really hate it. That's why I'm very careful to never net under 1000 for more than 2 days in a row if I happen to be really not hungry. I just make calorie bomb smoothies when not hungry to keep my net calories reasonable. On days I have a normal appetite I eat some of my higher calorie favorites and enjoy every bite while losing consistently without having to deal with hormonal hunger more often than I should.
Fair enough0 -
@FelonE1Pointless eating back calories if you're trying to lose weight
Here's some points to consider why MFP's eating back exercise calories method is better for me....
I frequently do long cycle rides (sometimes very long, 100+ miles) - they actually do need to be fuelled on the day.
My exercise calories differ enormously from day to day, low of zero to exceptional high of 4500+.
Even a normal week I would see daily variations from zero on a rest day to c.300 on strength training days to 800+ on cardio days to 2000+ on weekend rides.
My exercise also varies enormously from season to season, 600 cycling miles /month in July down to maybe 60 in December. My winter TDEE is far lower (sadly - just when it's "eating season"!).
I also actually dislike the feeling of set daily calorie goals which same every day calorie allowance would give me, makes me feel far more restricted than exactly the same total weekly calories split into 7 equal parts. That's maybe weird but adherence is very personal.
If someone has a regular and/or low exercise volume then the TDEE method is certainly more simple. Both methods should end up at the same place. The success that people get with using the TDEE method (inherently less accurate) demonstrates why complete accuracy isn't really necessary for success.
The method I think is mistaken is to set a calorie goal using MFP but then not account for significant exercise.1
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