eating back excercise calories
Options
2baninja
Posts: 511 Member
Why are we suppose to eat back some/most of our exercise calories? I've seen one post that commented that if I don't I'll feel sick. I sometimes eat back some of those calories, but I don't go into the day saying, ooo I burned off 300 cal. I can eat more, if it happens, it happens, but I don't eat more just because I worked out. So I'm curious as to the why?
0
Replies
-
Nvm0
-
You need to eat more on days you exercise because you have different needs (macros) For example, my protein went up to 72 grams today because I burnt off 267 calories. Your muscles need to repair themselves with something.4
-
-
You want to properly fuel workouts and preserve muscle mass if you’re goal is improved fitness. You may lose faster if you don’t eat any calories back but you will sacrifice muscle and risk your health.2
-
Assuming you are trying to lose weight, you need to be in a calorie deficit (i.e. - burning more cals over time than you're consuming). There are a zillion ways to accomplish this, none of them inherently better than any other.
MFP is setup to lose weight via a controlled diet/intake. If you add exercise, that's more than fine, but it changes the way the math works out, and thus MFP tells you to eat back those calories because while you do want to be in a deficit, you don't want to be in too large of a deficit.
That's the cliff notes version... ask follow-up questions if you want more details.4 -
livenfree45 wrote: »Why are we suppose to eat back some/most of our exercise calories? I've seen one post that commented that if I don't I'll feel sick. I sometimes eat back some of those calories, but I don't go into the day saying, ooo I burned off 300 cal. I can eat more, if it happens, it happens, but I don't eat more just because I worked out. So I'm curious as to the why?
Because your calorie target assume ZERO exercise...it is unaccounted for activity in your activity level setting. My MFP calorie target to lose about 1 Lb per week is 1,900 calories...that assumes ZERO exercise...that assumes that between my BMR and my regular daily activity that my maintenance is 2,400 calories per day (500 calorie deficit).
A typical longer ride for me would be about 30 miles...I'll burn around 1,000 calories on a 30 mile ride. If I didn't account for that activity my net calories would be 1,900-1,000 = 900 calories. This would be the exact same thing as me only eating 900 calories. Does that sound healthy for an adult, active male?
So I would log it and eat back those calories bringing my net calories back to 1,900 calories and my gross calories to 2,900...and I'd still lose about 1 Lb per week because with the additional activity, my maintenance calories would go to 2,400 + 1,000 = 3,400...and 3,400 - 2,900 = 500 calorie deficit.
Basically 2nd grade math.3 -
livenfree45 wrote: »
An abbreviation for never mind0 -
Your body doesn't just burn fat. If your deficit is too large, it'll burn muscle too. Your heart is a muscle. (Remember Karen Carpenter? 70s and early 80s singer, recorded "Rainy Days and Mondays"? She struggled with anorexia for years, eventually got help and seemed to have things under control... but running high calorie deficits for too long had taken its toll and she died of a heart attack in her 30s.)
As the poster above me says, MFP bases your calorie target on your getting zero exercise. You're already in a deficit to lose however much per week you told MFP you wanted to. When you exercise, you increase your deficit, possibly dangerously so.
Note: I'm not talking about a situation where you have, say, 50 lbs to lose, you've set it for 1/2lb a week, and you burned off 200 calories. Then, I'd say it's optional, because to lose 1/2 lb, you need to be under your maintenance by roughly 250 calories. To lose 1lb, it's about 500. And with 50lbs to lose, you can safely lose 1lb a week. But if you're already running the maximum safe deficit, and you're working out... then yes, at least eat some of those back.2 -
Where I'm coming from is, like yesterday, I ate as I normally would, I didn't scrimp on anything, I ate as I would have whether I exercised or not, I was never hungry, I was never tired, beyond the hard workout that I did, and I was under my 2020- no exercise calorie goal. I don't want to eat when I'm not hungry, I've had problems with that in the past..... I do need to up my protein content overall, but that is an everyday problem. I would not call my diet super healthy either.0
-
livenfree45 wrote: »Where I'm coming from is, like yesterday, I ate as I normally would, I didn't scrimp on anything, I ate as I would have whether I exercised or not, I was never hungry, I was never tired, beyond the hard workout that I did, and I was under my 2020- no exercise calorie goal. I don't want to eat when I'm not hungry, I've had problems with that in the past..... I do need to up my protein content overall, but that is an everyday problem. I would not call my diet super healthy either.
If your calorie target as a female to lose weight is 2020 calories then I'm assuming you have a fair amount of weight to lose or you're running a very small deficit...if you're eating 2020 calories and burn a couple hundred off, you're still at a calorie intake that shouldn't cause problems.
Problems arise when people are eating 1200 calories and then going to the gym to burn more off and not accounting for that activity...that's where you start to see malnutrition...hair falling out...menstrual cycle goes bye bye, etc.
Issues also arise when you're doing more intensive or longer duration exercise...those things will substantially break the body down and the body requires energy (calories) to rebuild and recover...you have to fuel your fitness.
When I was doing little more than walking, I never ate those couple hundred calories back really...walking a few miles wasn't particularly taxing on my body. When I started getting more into fitness I quickly realized that activity needed fuel.
Also note that the impacts of under-feeding don't generally show up immediately...it's a cumulative effect over time, not an overnight thing...so you might notice nothing now...down the road may or may not be another story.4 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »livenfree45 wrote: »Where I'm coming from is, like yesterday, I ate as I normally would, I didn't scrimp on anything, I ate as I would have whether I exercised or not, I was never hungry, I was never tired, beyond the hard workout that I did, and I was under my 2020- no exercise calorie goal. I don't want to eat when I'm not hungry, I've had problems with that in the past..... I do need to up my protein content overall, but that is an everyday problem. I would not call my diet super healthy either.
If your calorie target as a female to lose weight is 2020 calories then I'm assuming you have a fair amount of weight to lose or you're running a very small deficit...if you're eating 2020 calories and burn a couple hundred off, you're still at a calorie intake that shouldn't cause problems.
Problems arise when people are eating 1200 calories and then going to the gym to burn more off and not accounting for that activity...that's where you start to see malnutrition...hair falling out...menstrual cycle goes bye bye, etc.
Issues also arise when you're doing more intensive or longer duration exercise...those things will substantially break the body down and the body requires energy (calories) to rebuild and recover...you have to fuel your fitness.
When I was doing little more than walking, I never ate those couple hundred calories back really...walking a few miles wasn't particularly taxing on my body. When I started getting more into fitness I quickly realized that activity needed fuel.
Also note that the impacts of under-feeding don't generally show up immediately...it's a cumulative effect over time, not an overnight thing...so you might notice nothing now...down the road may or may not be another story.
I started at 266, I'm down to 249, I have it set at being lightly active, and lose 1 pound a week, I try to work out 5 days a week, the highest calories I've burned, (if the readings are correct) is 350. I figure when I really start hammering down on the workouts, I'll be hungry, then I'll eat more, but for now, if I'm not hungry, I don't want to eat, just because I "should".
Thanks0 -
livenfree45 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »livenfree45 wrote: »Where I'm coming from is, like yesterday, I ate as I normally would, I didn't scrimp on anything, I ate as I would have whether I exercised or not, I was never hungry, I was never tired, beyond the hard workout that I did, and I was under my 2020- no exercise calorie goal. I don't want to eat when I'm not hungry, I've had problems with that in the past..... I do need to up my protein content overall, but that is an everyday problem. I would not call my diet super healthy either.
If your calorie target as a female to lose weight is 2020 calories then I'm assuming you have a fair amount of weight to lose or you're running a very small deficit...if you're eating 2020 calories and burn a couple hundred off, you're still at a calorie intake that shouldn't cause problems.
Problems arise when people are eating 1200 calories and then going to the gym to burn more off and not accounting for that activity...that's where you start to see malnutrition...hair falling out...menstrual cycle goes bye bye, etc.
Issues also arise when you're doing more intensive or longer duration exercise...those things will substantially break the body down and the body requires energy (calories) to rebuild and recover...you have to fuel your fitness.
When I was doing little more than walking, I never ate those couple hundred calories back really...walking a few miles wasn't particularly taxing on my body. When I started getting more into fitness I quickly realized that activity needed fuel.
Also note that the impacts of under-feeding don't generally show up immediately...it's a cumulative effect over time, not an overnight thing...so you might notice nothing now...down the road may or may not be another story.
I started at 266, I'm down to 249, I have it set at being lightly active, and lose 1 pound a week, I try to work out 5 days a week, the highest calories I've burned, (if the readings are correct) is 350. I figure when I really start hammering down on the workouts, I'll be hungry, then I'll eat more, but for now, if I'm not hungry, I don't want to eat, just because I "should".
Thanks
I forgot, my starting goal is to get to 180 #, them go from there0 -
livenfree45 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »livenfree45 wrote: »Where I'm coming from is, like yesterday, I ate as I normally would, I didn't scrimp on anything, I ate as I would have whether I exercised or not, I was never hungry, I was never tired, beyond the hard workout that I did, and I was under my 2020- no exercise calorie goal. I don't want to eat when I'm not hungry, I've had problems with that in the past..... I do need to up my protein content overall, but that is an everyday problem. I would not call my diet super healthy either.
If your calorie target as a female to lose weight is 2020 calories then I'm assuming you have a fair amount of weight to lose or you're running a very small deficit...if you're eating 2020 calories and burn a couple hundred off, you're still at a calorie intake that shouldn't cause problems.
Problems arise when people are eating 1200 calories and then going to the gym to burn more off and not accounting for that activity...that's where you start to see malnutrition...hair falling out...menstrual cycle goes bye bye, etc.
Issues also arise when you're doing more intensive or longer duration exercise...those things will substantially break the body down and the body requires energy (calories) to rebuild and recover...you have to fuel your fitness.
When I was doing little more than walking, I never ate those couple hundred calories back really...walking a few miles wasn't particularly taxing on my body. When I started getting more into fitness I quickly realized that activity needed fuel.
Also note that the impacts of under-feeding don't generally show up immediately...it's a cumulative effect over time, not an overnight thing...so you might notice nothing now...down the road may or may not be another story.
I started at 266, I'm down to 249, I have it set at being lightly active, and lose 1 pound a week, I try to work out 5 days a week, the highest calories I've burned, (if the readings are correct) is 350. I figure when I really start hammering down on the workouts, I'll be hungry, then I'll eat more, but for now, if I'm not hungry, I don't want to eat, just because I "should".
Thanks
Actually, you may or may not be hungry with increased exercise...when I'm training for endurance cycling events, it most often suppresses appetite...but I have to eat otherwise my training suffers, my recovery suffers, and I'll have an overall crappy race...and I'd lose weight when I really don't want to. When I'm training for an event like that I eat upwards of 3,000 - 3,500 calories to maintain my weight.
Also, does you light active setting take into account your light exercise activity? If it does, then you wouldn't want to eat back calories as you would be double dipping because they are accounted for in your activity level...you eat back calories when your activity level doesn't include exercise as it would then be additional and unaccounted for activity.2 -
My hair fell out because I was eating 1200 calories and exercising 2 hours a day. Now, I am eating back my exercise calories, but I gained 5 pounds. I think MFP may over exagerate the exercise calories. I am trying to work out how much to eat without losing hair and gaining weight. I guess it is trial and error. I guess I wanted to put my input in to let you know, you are not the only one with this problem. Good luck.1
-
livenfree45 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »livenfree45 wrote: »Where I'm coming from is, like yesterday, I ate as I normally would, I didn't scrimp on anything, I ate as I would have whether I exercised or not, I was never hungry, I was never tired, beyond the hard workout that I did, and I was under my 2020- no exercise calorie goal. I don't want to eat when I'm not hungry, I've had problems with that in the past..... I do need to up my protein content overall, but that is an everyday problem. I would not call my diet super healthy either.
If your calorie target as a female to lose weight is 2020 calories then I'm assuming you have a fair amount of weight to lose or you're running a very small deficit...if you're eating 2020 calories and burn a couple hundred off, you're still at a calorie intake that shouldn't cause problems.
Problems arise when people are eating 1200 calories and then going to the gym to burn more off and not accounting for that activity...that's where you start to see malnutrition...hair falling out...menstrual cycle goes bye bye, etc.
Issues also arise when you're doing more intensive or longer duration exercise...those things will substantially break the body down and the body requires energy (calories) to rebuild and recover...you have to fuel your fitness.
When I was doing little more than walking, I never ate those couple hundred calories back really...walking a few miles wasn't particularly taxing on my body. When I started getting more into fitness I quickly realized that activity needed fuel.
Also note that the impacts of under-feeding don't generally show up immediately...it's a cumulative effect over time, not an overnight thing...so you might notice nothing now...down the road may or may not be another story.
I started at 266, I'm down to 249, I have it set at being lightly active, and lose 1 pound a week, I try to work out 5 days a week, the highest calories I've burned, (if the readings are correct) is 350. I figure when I really start hammering down on the workouts, I'll be hungry, then I'll eat more, but for now, if I'm not hungry, I don't want to eat, just because I "should".
Thanks
Yeah, you're totally fine with those numbers. I average about 2000 calories a day, do short but moderately intense work outs maybe 15-20 minutes a day (usually about 150 calories burned), and average everything by week and month rather than get hung up on eating exactly 90 more calories one day and 225 the next. I lose around a pound a week, which I find totally doable. So long as you're eating enough to fuel your body and get proper nutrition while still in whatever sort of deficit makes you happy, you're fine.0 -
livenfree45 wrote: »Why are we suppose to eat back some/most of our exercise calories? I've seen one post that commented that if I don't I'll feel sick. I sometimes eat back some of those calories, but I don't go into the day saying, ooo I burned off 300 cal. I can eat more, if it happens, it happens, but I don't eat more just because I worked out. So I'm curious as to the why?
Fueling a working body.1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »livenfree45 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »livenfree45 wrote: »Where I'm coming from is, like yesterday, I ate as I normally would, I didn't scrimp on anything, I ate as I would have whether I exercised or not, I was never hungry, I was never tired, beyond the hard workout that I did, and I was under my 2020- no exercise calorie goal. I don't want to eat when I'm not hungry, I've had problems with that in the past..... I do need to up my protein content overall, but that is an everyday problem. I would not call my diet super healthy either.
If your calorie target as a female to lose weight is 2020 calories then I'm assuming you have a fair amount of weight to lose or you're running a very small deficit...if you're eating 2020 calories and burn a couple hundred off, you're still at a calorie intake that shouldn't cause problems.
Problems arise when people are eating 1200 calories and then going to the gym to burn more off and not accounting for that activity...that's where you start to see malnutrition...hair falling out...menstrual cycle goes bye bye, etc.
Issues also arise when you're doing more intensive or longer duration exercise...those things will substantially break the body down and the body requires energy (calories) to rebuild and recover...you have to fuel your fitness.
When I was doing little more than walking, I never ate those couple hundred calories back really...walking a few miles wasn't particularly taxing on my body. When I started getting more into fitness I quickly realized that activity needed fuel.
Also note that the impacts of under-feeding don't generally show up immediately...it's a cumulative effect over time, not an overnight thing...so you might notice nothing now...down the road may or may not be another story.
I started at 266, I'm down to 249, I have it set at being lightly active, and lose 1 pound a week, I try to work out 5 days a week, the highest calories I've burned, (if the readings are correct) is 350. I figure when I really start hammering down on the workouts, I'll be hungry, then I'll eat more, but for now, if I'm not hungry, I don't want to eat, just because I "should".
Thanks
Actually, you may or may not be hungry with increased exercise...when I'm training for endurance cycling events, it most often suppresses appetite...but I have to eat otherwise my training suffers, my recovery suffers, and I'll have an overall crappy race...and I'd lose weight when I really don't want to. When I'm training for an event like that I eat upwards of 3,000 - 3,500 calories to maintain my weight.
Also, does you light active setting take into account your light exercise activity? If it does, then you wouldn't want to eat back calories as you would be double dipping because they are accounted for in your activity level...you eat back calories when your activity level doesn't include exercise as it would then be additional and unaccounted for activity.
Nope, my light activity setting is only because I work in retail, so I'm standing/moving around a fair amount during the day.0 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »livenfree45 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »livenfree45 wrote: »Where I'm coming from is, like yesterday, I ate as I normally would, I didn't scrimp on anything, I ate as I would have whether I exercised or not, I was never hungry, I was never tired, beyond the hard workout that I did, and I was under my 2020- no exercise calorie goal. I don't want to eat when I'm not hungry, I've had problems with that in the past..... I do need to up my protein content overall, but that is an everyday problem. I would not call my diet super healthy either.
If your calorie target as a female to lose weight is 2020 calories then I'm assuming you have a fair amount of weight to lose or you're running a very small deficit...if you're eating 2020 calories and burn a couple hundred off, you're still at a calorie intake that shouldn't cause problems.
Problems arise when people are eating 1200 calories and then going to the gym to burn more off and not accounting for that activity...that's where you start to see malnutrition...hair falling out...menstrual cycle goes bye bye, etc.
Issues also arise when you're doing more intensive or longer duration exercise...those things will substantially break the body down and the body requires energy (calories) to rebuild and recover...you have to fuel your fitness.
When I was doing little more than walking, I never ate those couple hundred calories back really...walking a few miles wasn't particularly taxing on my body. When I started getting more into fitness I quickly realized that activity needed fuel.
Also note that the impacts of under-feeding don't generally show up immediately...it's a cumulative effect over time, not an overnight thing...so you might notice nothing now...down the road may or may not be another story.
I started at 266, I'm down to 249, I have it set at being lightly active, and lose 1 pound a week, I try to work out 5 days a week, the highest calories I've burned, (if the readings are correct) is 350. I figure when I really start hammering down on the workouts, I'll be hungry, then I'll eat more, but for now, if I'm not hungry, I don't want to eat, just because I "should".
Thanks
Yeah, you're totally fine with those numbers. I average about 2000 calories a day, do short but moderately intense work outs maybe 15-20 minutes a day (usually about 150 calories burned), and average everything by week and month rather than get hung up on eating exactly 90 more calories one day and 225 the next. I lose around a pound a week, which I find totally doable. So long as you're eating enough to fuel your body and get proper nutrition while still in whatever sort of deficit makes you happy, you're fine.
I found where to see what my cico was for the week, and so far I've been below my cal. goal at the most 2000 cal.0 -
I didn't worry about it if it was only 300 calories. When I was trying to burn 1000 calories in a day of exercising, I'd make a point of eating something more.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions