Eating back calories?
kaylalouisemills
Posts: 3 Member
I'm a 5 ft 10 woman, 224lb. I've set mfp to sedentary, and it's gave me a calorie allowance of 1300 it seems quite low but doable. I don't exercise all that much but I've purchased a fitness tracker for steps and I do the c25k app three times a week. Do I or don't I eat back my calories from this ive seen some people saying they don't? Please can someone advise me, I really want to stick at this, this time round.
1
Replies
-
It will vary person to person based on a number of factors, but generally speaking, eating back half is a good place to start.1
-
When I eat back my calories from exercise I don't lose weight. I have a fit gear that tracks and now I don't even list my exercise on here anymore.3
-
I always ate every delicious exercise calorie, and all I used was the MyFitnessPal calculations. It worked fine until I got closer to my goal weight. The advice you read is often focused toward people with not a lot of weight to lose.
When you have a lot of weight to lose, it is easy to lose but difficult to stay at 1300 calories, so those extra calories from exercise are crucial in my opinion. You have a lot of room for calculation errors when you are at a high weight, and you will still lose. I say enjoy it while you can.0 -
Generally, endurance athletes seem to eat back exercise calories more than other people because they really are exercising intensely enough to get away with it.
People who lift heavy may "eat back" because they want to gain weight.
If you are not an endurance athlete or into weight lifting and trying to bulk then you do not need to eat back calories and so you probably should not eat back ANY.
You have no real indicator of how many exercise calories you are truly burning so how much do you eat back? Hmmm....
What is the point of exercising to burn MORE calories if you insist on eating them back?
It is often a way for people to rationalize eating more than they should.
If you insist on eating back your "exercise" then you should not go over 25% to 50%.
Many people think they are exercising much harder than they really are and sabotage their "weight loss" results.1 -
I have been wondering this myself. I want to feel full and satisfied so that I don't binge, but on days when I workout I am a lot hungrier. Having those extra calories added to my allowance is just so tempting.... I worry though that I am simply working out so that I can eat more. I chose the semi active option and get closer to 1500 calories which helps. I tried inactive but could not stick to the calorie restriction and found myself so frustrated that I would give up for months at a time. I work a desk job too but I now am experimenting with taking a 5 minute walk up and down the stairs once an hour so I think that helps too.1
-
MFP gives you a calorie target to lose weight that assumes ZERO exercise...common sense would dictate that additional activity beyond your established activity level should be accounted for somewhere...with MFP, that somewhere is when you do it, log it, and get calories to "eat back"...
The difficulty comes in accurately measuring energy expenditure...you can't take the burns MFP gives you from the database as some kind of gospel. There are numerous ways of going about verifying with some degree of accuracy your energy expenditure, but you can't just take a database as gospel.
Fueling your fitness is important...failure to fuel your fitness will ultimately impede fitness performance, hamper recovery, and impede fitness development.
I'll give you my numbers as an example...to lose about 1 Lb per week MFP will give me 1900 calories...so MFP is estimating my NON EXERCISE maintenance to be around 2,400 calories. I cycle a lot and generally burn in the neighborhood of 600 calories in an hour of cycling...I can eat those calories and still lose about 1 Lb per week eating 2,500 calories because with exercise, my maintenance is 2,400 + 600 = 3,000 calories and 3,000 - 2,500 = 500 calorie deficit.
On Sunday I'm going for a 30 mile ride...I will burn in the neighborhood of 1,200 calories...if I didn't account for that, I'd be providing my body with insufficient energy because 1,900 - 1,200 = 700 calories for my body to perform general functions and to go about my day to day stuff...that would be no bueno and very unhealthy.
You also have to ultimately consider what you're doing...the more intense the exercise is, the more it is going to break down the body requiring energy (calories) for repair...longer duration endurance exercise also requires a considerable amount of energy.1 -
1300 is doable, but is it sustainable? I started at 1200 and did that for 6 months, but I did eat back some, not all of my exercise calories. I dropped the weight I wanted to lose then went on to lose another 15 pounds with the OK from my doctor. I found it more difficult as time went on the stick to the 1200, especially on days I didn't do any exercise. Rather than worry about the exact numbers I upped my exercise and ate back more of those calories. Lots of people don't eat back their exercise calories, but that's not how this program is designed. Just remember that all these numbers are estimates and it's up to you to adjust according to how it's working for you.0
-
that seems really low for your height and weight.
im 5'1, 180 and eat around 14-1500 and lose consistently
anyways, sometimes i eat them back, sometimes i dont. really depends on how hungry i think i am lol i rarely eat back more than half, but it happens sometimes (actually pretty sure its going to happen today since ive already gone through all my food for the day, save for dinner LOLOLOL )0 -
1300 for someone who is 5'10" is very low. Did you also set it to lose 2lbs a week?
I am 5'8.5" and aim for 1800 and eat most of my exercise calories.0 -
Generally, endurance athletes seem to eat back exercise calories more than other people because they really are exercising intensely enough to get away with it.
People who lift heavy may "eat back" because they want to gain weight.
If you are not an endurance athlete or into weight lifting and trying to bulk then you do not need to eat back calories and so you probably should not eat back ANY.
You have no real indicator of how many exercise calories you are truly burning so how much do you eat back? Hmmm....
What is the point of exercising to burn MORE calories if you insist on eating them back?
It is often a way for people to rationalize eating more than they should.
If you insist on eating back your "exercise" then you should not go over 25% to 50%.
Many people think they are exercising much harder than they really are and sabotage their "weight loss" results.
This is not how MFP is intended to be used. I am not an endurance athlete or into weight lifting - my exercise is walking (usually about 15K steps/day) and light circuit training a few times a week. My exercise adjustments are around 300-400 cals. I eat them back now in maintenance, and did so when I was losing as well. I lost weight at the rate that I wanted BECAUSE I was using the system as it was designed. If I hadn't eaten back those exercise calories, I would have created an additional deficit above the one that MFP set for me and above what would have been healthy for me.
The exercise estimates were always accurate for me, but I do often recommend some people start with only eating back about 50% of their calories until they know for sure if the calorie estimates are inflated.2 -
Congratulations. You are a rare case.WinoGelato wrote: »The exercise estimates were always accurate for me, but I do often recommend some people start with only eating back about 50% of their calories until they know for sure if the calorie estimates are inflated.
I use the system as *I* intend and meet my goals as well.
1 -
Generally, endurance athletes seem to eat back exercise calories more than other people because they really are exercising intensely enough to get away with it.
People who lift heavy may "eat back" because they want to gain weight.
If you are not an endurance athlete or into weight lifting and trying to bulk then you do not need to eat back calories and so you probably should not eat back ANY.
You have no real indicator of how many exercise calories you are truly burning so how much do you eat back? Hmmm....
What is the point of exercising to burn MORE calories if you insist on eating them back?
It is often a way for people to rationalize eating more than they should.
If you insist on eating back your "exercise" then you should not go over 25% to 50%.
Many people think they are exercising much harder than they really are and sabotage their "weight loss" results.
People exercise for lots of different reasons -- improved fitness, a more mobile old age, it can be a great way to socialize, you can model activity for children in your life, improved health, better mood, better sleep, sometimes even appetite control.
Asking what's the point of exercising if one decides to fuel one's activity seems to miss the point.
All our calorie intake/outtake numbers are just estimates. Would you say that since we can never know precisely how much we're eating, we shouldn't bother logging?
If people have bad results because they over-estimate their burn, then they can adjust based on their real world results. That isn't a reason to completely give up on fueling one's activity.0 -
Congratulations. You are a rare case.WinoGelato wrote: »The exercise estimates were always accurate for me, but I do often recommend some people start with only eating back about 50% of their calories until they know for sure if the calorie estimates are inflated.
I use the system as *I* intend and meet my goals as well.
No she isn't. Do you understand how this site works? I think probably not.1 -
You misquoted me there and so you changed the point entirely.janejellyroll wrote: »Generally, endurance athletes seem to eat back exercise calories more than other people because they really are exercising intensely enough to get away with it.
People who lift heavy may "eat back" because they want to gain weight.
If you are not an endurance athlete or into weight lifting and trying to bulk then you do not need to eat back calories and so you probably should not eat back ANY.
You have no real indicator of how many exercise calories you are truly burning so how much do you eat back? Hmmm....
What is the point of exercising to burn MORE calories if you insist on eating them back?
It is often a way for people to rationalize eating more than they should.
If you insist on eating back your "exercise" then you should not go over 25% to 50%.
Many people think they are exercising much harder than they really are and sabotage their "weight loss" results.
People exercise for lots of different reasons -- improved fitness, a more mobile old age, it can be a great way to socialize, you can model activity for children in your life, improved health, better mood, better sleep, sometimes even appetite control.
Asking what's the point of exercising if one decides to fuel one's activity seems to miss the point.
All our calorie intake/outtake numbers are just estimates. Would you say that since we can never know precisely how much we're eating, we shouldn't bother logging?
If people have bad results because they over-estimate their burn, then they can adjust based on their real world results. That isn't a reason to completely give up on fueling one's activity.
To the OP, see? Here is why you are confused.
Educate yourself, try it both ways and see what works for you.
0 -
I wore a HRM while losing my 100 pounds and ate back.every.single.one. It was the only reason I started walking in the beginning. Now I walk everywhere, dont really count those as exercise anymore. Still eat back whats burned if its a specific exercise. Just another opinion in a sea of them.1
-
She isn't a rare case? Really?cmriverside wrote: »No she isn't. Do you understand how this site works? I think probably not.
Then why do many people on these boards complain that it is "not working for them" in some form or another?
Are they are are they not "using it properly"?
Irrelevant. I'm out. Good luck OP.
0 -
She isn't a rare case? Really?cmriverside wrote: »No she isn't. Do you understand how this site works? I think probably not.
Then why do many people on these boards complain that it is "not working for them" in some form or another?
Are they are are they not "using it properly"?
Irrelevant. I'm out. Good luck OP.
I would say that the vast majority of veterans on this site have used MFP as intended and eaten back exercise calories to account for that activity...
There are so many people on these boards complaining that it doesn't work because they likely aren't logging correctly and they're likely overestimating energy expenditure. A lot of people are really just *kitten* at all of this...it doesn't mean it doesn't work...you just have to be accurate with what you're doing.4 -
What is the point of exercising to burn MORE calories if you insist on eating them back?
Fitness, strength, scenery, camaraderie, the joy of being outdoors, doing something you love, competition, fun, endorphins (like "runner's high"), the ability to play with toys (new jacket, GPS, navigation app, etc), photography, transpiration, finding pokemon or geocaches, exploring a new area, beating cabin fever, earning a nice snack. None of that suffers in any way because you balance your eating with your activity.3 -
You just made my point for me.cwolfman13 wrote: »There are so many people on these boards complaining that it doesn't work because they likely aren't logging correctly and they're likely overestimating energy expenditure. A lot of people are really just *kitten* at all of this...it doesn't mean it doesn't work...you just have to be accurate with what you're doing.
"My way" helps to account for that. The "official" way does not.
I'm going to lunch...
0 -
You have no real indicator of how many exercise calories you are truly burning so how much do you eat back? Hmmm....
Huh? I have a power meter on my bike. It measures how much physical work I do, and the rate I preform the work at (aka my power output). From kiloJules come kiloCalories. Maximum error is 2 %.0 -
Thanks for all the help and advice. I think I'm just going to go with what works for me, if I'm really hungry I won't deny it because I won't stick to it, I've just looked at my diary today and if I was to eat back 50% of exercise calories I would still only be 1550 calories which would be fine for losing so I'm just going to trial different things and if they're not working I'll shake it up again. Thanks for the support people.3
-
You just made my point for me.cwolfman13 wrote: »There are so many people on these boards complaining that it doesn't work because they likely aren't logging correctly and they're likely overestimating energy expenditure. A lot of people are really just *kitten* at all of this...it doesn't mean it doesn't work...you just have to be accurate with what you're doing.
"My way" helps to account for that. The "official" way does not.
I'm going to lunch...
So you would suggest that people get their MFP targets and use those (which the OP is) which are usually very low and then do a bunch of exercise on top of what is basically a crashed diet. Alrighty then...sounds super healthy.2 -
You misquoted me there and so you changed the point entirely.janejellyroll wrote: »Generally, endurance athletes seem to eat back exercise calories more than other people because they really are exercising intensely enough to get away with it.
People who lift heavy may "eat back" because they want to gain weight.
If you are not an endurance athlete or into weight lifting and trying to bulk then you do not need to eat back calories and so you probably should not eat back ANY.
You have no real indicator of how many exercise calories you are truly burning so how much do you eat back? Hmmm....
What is the point of exercising to burn MORE calories if you insist on eating them back?
It is often a way for people to rationalize eating more than they should.
If you insist on eating back your "exercise" then you should not go over 25% to 50%.
Many people think they are exercising much harder than they really are and sabotage their "weight loss" results.
People exercise for lots of different reasons -- improved fitness, a more mobile old age, it can be a great way to socialize, you can model activity for children in your life, improved health, better mood, better sleep, sometimes even appetite control.
Asking what's the point of exercising if one decides to fuel one's activity seems to miss the point.
All our calorie intake/outtake numbers are just estimates. Would you say that since we can never know precisely how much we're eating, we shouldn't bother logging?
If people have bad results because they over-estimate their burn, then they can adjust based on their real world results. That isn't a reason to completely give up on fueling one's activity.
To the OP, see? Here is why you are confused.
Educate yourself, try it both ways and see what works for you.
Certainly the tone of your post, particularly where you said:
What is the point of exercising to burn MORE calories if you insist on eating them back?
It is often a way for people to rationalize eating more than they should.
Seems to indicate that people who are not endurance athletes and not lifting all the heavy things are only exercising so that they get to eat more food. 'more than they should' is what you said.
The other poster is simply pointing out that there are a variety of reasons that people choose to work out, not everyone is going balls to the walls at the gym or running marathons - but regardless of your motivation for exercising and increasing your activity level - the way that the MFP system was designed to be used was to eat back those exercise calories as the goals are set on NEAT only.
And no, I'm not a special snowflake rare case who ate back calories from my piddly little exercise and was able to still meet my goals. There are lots of people who have done just that. The people who say that the system isn't working for them are usually underestimating their food consumption, and sometimes overestimating exercise - which is why the advice to start with 50-75% of calories eaten back and then adjust from there is a good one. When I got my FitBit, it turned out I was burning a lot more than MFP had predicted - a high NEAT based on activity not even purposeful exercise is important too. I'm a 5'2 woman over 40 with a desk job, but still burn ~2200 cals/day because of my daily activity.0 -
kaylalouisemills wrote: »Thanks for all the help and advice. I think I'm just going to go with what works for me, if I'm really hungry I won't deny it because I won't stick to it, I've just looked at my diary today and if I was to eat back 50% of exercise calories I would still only be 1550 calories which would be fine for losing so I'm just going to trial different things and if they're not working I'll shake it up again. Thanks for the support people.
Getting back to your original question - I'm not sure which fitness tracker you are using, but I have a FitBit and have found it to be very accurate for me. When I started MFP I didn't have one, and I just went with the MFP exercise burn estimates, which for me, were fine. However, at that point I was a lot more sedentary and didn't move that much. Over time I focused on being more active, not only through exercise but just getting up and moving more. About 6 months in, I got a FitBit, and realized I was averaging about 10K steps/day, and my exercise adjustments were pretty high on MFP. That's because I was still set at sedentary - even though someone who averages 10K steps/day really isn't. I increased my activity level setting on MFP and have continued to increase my daily activity. I ate back those adjustments from the FitBit and lost weight at the rate I intended (first 1 lb/week and then 0.5 lb/week as I got closer to goal and raised my calories). Once I reached goal, I continued to log and eat back the exercise calories for my maintenance level. It has been accurate for me, and I'm about 2.5 years into maintaining that 35 lb loss.
I would just eat back some of the calories, monitor your weight loss, and adjust if needed.
I never understood why people wouldn't want to eat them back if they could and still lose weight - faster weight loss is not always the desired outcome!
Good luck.0 -
You misquoted me there and so you changed the point entirely.janejellyroll wrote: »Generally, endurance athletes seem to eat back exercise calories more than other people because they really are exercising intensely enough to get away with it.
People who lift heavy may "eat back" because they want to gain weight.
If you are not an endurance athlete or into weight lifting and trying to bulk then you do not need to eat back calories and so you probably should not eat back ANY.
You have no real indicator of how many exercise calories you are truly burning so how much do you eat back? Hmmm....
What is the point of exercising to burn MORE calories if you insist on eating them back?
It is often a way for people to rationalize eating more than they should.
If you insist on eating back your "exercise" then you should not go over 25% to 50%.
Many people think they are exercising much harder than they really are and sabotage their "weight loss" results.
People exercise for lots of different reasons -- improved fitness, a more mobile old age, it can be a great way to socialize, you can model activity for children in your life, improved health, better mood, better sleep, sometimes even appetite control.
Asking what's the point of exercising if one decides to fuel one's activity seems to miss the point.
All our calorie intake/outtake numbers are just estimates. Would you say that since we can never know precisely how much we're eating, we shouldn't bother logging?
If people have bad results because they over-estimate their burn, then they can adjust based on their real world results. That isn't a reason to completely give up on fueling one's activity.
To the OP, see? Here is why you are confused.
Educate yourself, try it both ways and see what works for you.
I'm sorry for misquoting you, it wasn't my intention. I still don't understand why you are so adamant that people shouldn't eat to fuel their activities.1 -
Congratulations. You are a rare case.WinoGelato wrote: »The exercise estimates were always accurate for me, but I do often recommend some people start with only eating back about 50% of their calories until they know for sure if the calorie estimates are inflated.
I use the system as *I* intend and meet my goals as well.
If you are using mfp to get your calorie goal then you should be using it as "it" is intended, which is to eat back exercise calories. If you used a TDEE calculator to get your exercise calories then you don't eat them back. Someone who sets their deficit at 1000 calories per day and then burns and extra 300 calories should eat those calories back whether they are an endurance athlete or not.2 -
kaylalouisemills wrote: »Thanks for all the help and advice. I think I'm just going to go with what works for me, if I'm really hungry I won't deny it because I won't stick to it, I've just looked at my diary today and if I was to eat back 50% of exercise calories I would still only be 1550 calories which would be fine for losing so I'm just going to trial different things and if they're not working I'll shake it up again. Thanks for the support people.
great decision OP. More important than any of this is just sticking with it and taking it slowly. Drink lots of water and get plenty of sleep. It will come together for you!1 -
There is no "right" way. There are multiple ways to approach all this, and the fact that it's all based on estimates just makes it that much more inexact. Argueing over the right way or what's more accurate is stupid.
It's true that the site works a certain way... and understanding what it's doing and why does matter. But once you understand that, if you choose to use it another way, that's fine. If you chose to use it as designed, that's fine too.
There are lots of ways to skin this cat... lots of ways to succeed, lots of ways to fail. The ones that succeed are the "right" ones, the ones that fail aren't. But what leads to success could vary person to person.
OP - everything you posted sounds reasonable, and is as good a place to start as any. Run with it for a month or so and see how you do, then go from there.2 -
There is no "right" way. There are multiple ways to approach all this, and the fact that it's all based on estimates just makes it that much more inexact. Argueing over the right way or what's more accurate is stupid.
It's true that the site works a certain way... and understanding what it's doing and why does matter. But once you understand that, if you choose to use it another way, that's fine. If you chose to use it as designed, that's fine too.
There are lots of ways to skin this cat... lots of ways to succeed, lots of ways to fail. The ones that succeed are the "right" ones, the ones that fail aren't. But what leads to success could vary person to person.
OP - everything you posted sounds reasonable, and is as good a place to start as any. Run with it for a month or so and see how you do, then go from there.
The problem is that most people who post these questions have no clue how the site is designed to work or where their calorie targets are coming from and how the calculator comes up with them...I mean there are a crap load of people on this site who think their calorie target is maintenance and they have to eat well under it or go burn off every single calorie with exercise. There are crap loads of people who don't even understand that they're "burning" calories 24/7.
I think it's important to at least educate people on how the site is actually designed to work and then they can go from there.4 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »There is no "right" way. There are multiple ways to approach all this, and the fact that it's all based on estimates just makes it that much more inexact. Argueing over the right way or what's more accurate is stupid.
It's true that the site works a certain way... and understanding what it's doing and why does matter. But once you understand that, if you choose to use it another way, that's fine. If you chose to use it as designed, that's fine too.
There are lots of ways to skin this cat... lots of ways to succeed, lots of ways to fail. The ones that succeed are the "right" ones, the ones that fail aren't. But what leads to success could vary person to person.
OP - everything you posted sounds reasonable, and is as good a place to start as any. Run with it for a month or so and see how you do, then go from there.
The problem is that most people who post these questions have no clue how the site is designed to work or where their calorie targets are coming from and how the calculator comes up with them...I mean there are a crap load of people on this site who think their calorie target is maintenance and they have to eat well under it or go burn off every single calorie with exercise. There are crap loads of people who don't even understand that they're "burning" calories 24/7.
I think it's important to at least educate people on how the site is actually designed to work and then they can go from there.
Agreed.0
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 427 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