Eating back burned calories?

Options
fitgirl1205
fitgirl1205 Posts: 3 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Hello, I am new here and wanted to introduce my self as well as ask for advice! I am currently trying to loose 60lbs and am consuming roughly 1,500 calories a day so that I can loose 1 pound a week. I brisk walk everyday and burn about 300 calories. I was wondering if I should eat back the calories I burn or should I treat them as a bonus to loose more? If I added the 300 calories I burned on then I would be consuming 1,800 calories a day. Would that make me gain or maintain weight? Or would I still be able to loose my 1lb a week?

Thanks so much for any help!

Replies

  • apullum
    apullum Posts: 4,838 Member
    Options
    MFP intends you to eat back all exercise calories assuming they are calculated accurately. If you don’t know whether your exercise calories are accurate, start by eating half of them and adjust based on whether your weight changes as expected.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    Options
    Eating back calories that you legitimately burned by exercise, or by other means, won't make you gain weight. It'll put you in the same position you would have been without the exercise and food. Except without the hearing benefits of exercise.

    Too big a deficit has issues, so by default the recommendation is to eat them.
  • Lillymoo01
    Lillymoo01 Posts: 2,865 Member
    Options
    If you don't eat back your exercise calories you run the risk of under fueling your body which will impact on your exercise as you simply won't have the energy to put in the same amount of effort. It also affects the effort you put into everything you do, whether you realise it or not. This reduces your calorie burn which decreases your deficit. You are much better off eating back anywhere between half to all of those exercise calories depending on your results. Besides, exercise calories taste so much better hee hee!
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    Eat your execise calories, like you will have to when you get to goal weight, but try to make those estimates as reasonable as possible.

    For walking (and other long duration but low intensity exercise) the issue of using net calorie estimates (the additional calorie burn over and above what you would have burned in that time period due to your exercise) rather than gross calories (exercise + what you would have burned anyway) becomes more significant.

    A rough net calorie estimate for walking on level ground is bodyweight in pounds X an efficiency ratio of 0.3 - so for example a 200lb person would burn roughly 60cals per mile. To burn net 300cals would take that person 5 miles.
  • Lillymoo01
    Lillymoo01 Posts: 2,865 Member
    Options
    sijomial wrote: »
    Eat your execise calories, like you will have to when you get to goal weight, but try to make those estimates as reasonable as possible.

    For walking (and other long duration but low intensity exercise) the issue of using net calorie estimates (the additional calorie burn over and above what you would have burned in that time period due to your exercise) rather than gross calories (exercise + what you would have burned anyway) becomes more significant.

    A rough net calorie estimate for walking on level ground is bodyweight in pounds X an efficiency ratio of 0.3 - so for example a 200lb person would burn roughly 60cals per mile. To burn net 300cals would take that person 5 miles.

    I have always found this calculation to be significantly lower than anything any app or fitness tracker gives me and long term data shows my Fitbit to be pretty accurate. It makes sense as to why. The formula does not take into consideration height and stride length. As someone who is under 5 foot, I need many more steps to walk a 1 mile than someone who is 6 foot. My guess is that this formula works for someone who is average height but not so much for those on either end of the spectrum.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    Lillymoo01 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Eat your execise calories, like you will have to when you get to goal weight, but try to make those estimates as reasonable as possible.

    For walking (and other long duration but low intensity exercise) the issue of using net calorie estimates (the additional calorie burn over and above what you would have burned in that time period due to your exercise) rather than gross calories (exercise + what you would have burned anyway) becomes more significant.

    A rough net calorie estimate for walking on level ground is bodyweight in pounds X an efficiency ratio of 0.3 - so for example a 200lb person would burn roughly 60cals per mile. To burn net 300cals would take that person 5 miles.

    I have always found this calculation to be significantly lower than anything any app or fitness tracker gives me and long term data shows my Fitbit to be pretty accurate. It makes sense as to why. The formula does not take into consideration height and stride length. As someone who is under 5 foot, I need many more steps to walk a 1 mile than someone who is 6 foot. My guess is that this formula works for someone who is average height but not so much for those on either end of the spectrum.

    Yes it's going to be an average for efficiency and yes not everyone will have the same efficiency but stride and height aren't really as significant as the simple physics of mass moved over distance. A tall person's longer stride will typically burn more calories than a short person's stride but more calories X fewer strides more compared to less calories X more strides will tend to even out.

    Apps and trackers tend to be gross estimates - as are the estimates that MyFitnessPal sources.
  • Lillymoo01
    Lillymoo01 Posts: 2,865 Member
    Options
    sijomial wrote: »
    Lillymoo01 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Eat your execise calories, like you will have to when you get to goal weight, but try to make those estimates as reasonable as possible.

    For walking (and other long duration but low intensity exercise) the issue of using net calorie estimates (the additional calorie burn over and above what you would have burned in that time period due to your exercise) rather than gross calories (exercise + what you would have burned anyway) becomes more significant.

    A rough net calorie estimate for walking on level ground is bodyweight in pounds X an efficiency ratio of 0.3 - so for example a 200lb person would burn roughly 60cals per mile. To burn net 300cals would take that person 5 miles.

    I have always found this calculation to be significantly lower than anything any app or fitness tracker gives me and long term data shows my Fitbit to be pretty accurate. It makes sense as to why. The formula does not take into consideration height and stride length. As someone who is under 5 foot, I need many more steps to walk a 1 mile than someone who is 6 foot. My guess is that this formula works for someone who is average height but not so much for those on either end of the spectrum.

    Yes it's going to be an average for efficiency and yes not everyone will have the same efficiency but stride and height aren't really as significant as the simple physics of mass moved over distance. A tall person's longer stride will typically burn more calories than a short person's stride but more calories X fewer strides more compared to less calories X more strides will tend to even out.

    Apps and trackers tend to be gross estimates - as are the estimates that MyFitnessPal sources.

    If a tall person and a short person were the same weight wouldn't the short person burn more calories?
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    Lillymoo01 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Lillymoo01 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Eat your execise calories, like you will have to when you get to goal weight, but try to make those estimates as reasonable as possible.

    For walking (and other long duration but low intensity exercise) the issue of using net calorie estimates (the additional calorie burn over and above what you would have burned in that time period due to your exercise) rather than gross calories (exercise + what you would have burned anyway) becomes more significant.

    A rough net calorie estimate for walking on level ground is bodyweight in pounds X an efficiency ratio of 0.3 - so for example a 200lb person would burn roughly 60cals per mile. To burn net 300cals would take that person 5 miles.

    I have always found this calculation to be significantly lower than anything any app or fitness tracker gives me and long term data shows my Fitbit to be pretty accurate. It makes sense as to why. The formula does not take into consideration height and stride length. As someone who is under 5 foot, I need many more steps to walk a 1 mile than someone who is 6 foot. My guess is that this formula works for someone who is average height but not so much for those on either end of the spectrum.

    Yes it's going to be an average for efficiency and yes not everyone will have the same efficiency but stride and height aren't really as significant as the simple physics of mass moved over distance. A tall person's longer stride will typically burn more calories than a short person's stride but more calories X fewer strides more compared to less calories X more strides will tend to even out.

    Apps and trackers tend to be gross estimates - as are the estimates that MyFitnessPal sources.

    If a tall person and a short person were the same weight wouldn't the short person burn more calories?

    More likely they were extremely similar unless there's other factors at play.
    e.g. for several months last year I had a severe limp from nerve impingment, my MIL has bad hips and waddles like a penguin....
    It's still an estimate (and a population estimate with individual variance) but probably a better estimate.

    With my stats (170lbs) an hour at 4mph is c. 204 net estimate, a gross estimate would be off by c. 100cals for that hour - that's a huge variance compared to small differences in walking efficency.
    Not perfect but probably better.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,783 Member
    edited January 2020
    Options
    Speed counts if you walk faster. Inclination (grade) counts. Neither are captured by the formula. (the level ground assumption is explicit)

    But yes, most exercises are listed as "gross" calories as opposed to "net".
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    Speed counts if you walk faster. Inclination (grade) counts. Neither are captured by the formula. (the level ground assumption is explicit)

    But yes, most exercises are listed as "gross" calories as opposed to "net".

    Speed counts if you walk a lot faster, beyond the range of normal walking speeds, otherwise it's really affecting the rate not the total if distance is the same.

Categories