do I really need to eat back 1800 calories?

lithezebra

My method is to eat back until I feel satisfied. I try not to under-eat or over-eat. I think of this as training for the long term.

Same here. Even in the short term, if I don't eat back enough, I lack the energy for intense workouts.

NYCNika

I always eat back exercise calories. Don't want to stress my body too much with large deficit.

But for me, 10 miles burns under 1,000 calories.

I'd have no problem eating it back too. Ingredients for a nice cocktail/beer/some wine and good cheese and freshly toasted nuts are always stocked in my house.

RGv2

My method - I never eat back exercise calories no matter what the self-Appointed MFP Food Police or self-Appointed MFP doctors say or think.

So, according to you, assuming that the food logging is accurate and the calories burned is accurate, eating 1600 calories and then burning 1800 calories, therefore netting -200 calories for the day is a long term healthy and manageable solution?

^^^This.......you can't really believe it's healthy to have a net negative caloric intake?

(even though I think 1800 sounds a bit inflated).

lithezebra

Sometimes I'm not hungry the same day that I burn a lot of calories, so I might eat more the next day instead of doing so immediately. Eating enough is part of rest and recovery.

ElliottTN

Also think 1800 is a bit of an overestimation for 10 miles. I've gone that distance before with a heart rate monitor and basically burned just a bit more than half of that and I am not exactly a small guy.

That said, there are some here that think your body will consume itself overnight and you walk up in the morning looking like a starving child on one of those commercials. It's not true. Do what feels right. You might feel great after a small snack and just a few more calories the next day but no reason to eat that all back if your body isn't telling you that you need it. There is not a 24 hour switch in your body that cuts off at midnight and does calculations and then adjusts itself to what you ate in that 24 hour period.

If I were you I'd just hit your macros the next day for carbs to get those glycogen stores replenished and eat a bit over with your protein for muscle repair. There is no reason to flood your body with calories if your body isn't telling you that you need it. Just because the calorie nazis here yell the loudest about eating back your workout calories doesn't make it true across the board.

TeaBea

could someone plzz explain. if the idea of losing weight is to BURN more than you eat, y r we suppose to eat back our exercise calories? doesn't that defeat the purpose?

Eating back exercise calories does not defeat the purpose because......MFP gave you a calorie deficit BEFORE exercise. So exercising makes the deficit larger

People tend to exercise for fitness (health reasons) ... not to calorie burns. Not eating back calories DEFEATS exercise in a way. When you workout while dieting, you hope to retain muscle mass. Well, not eating enough actually promotes muscle loss.

Bottom line .....do you want to lose just fat or fat+muscle?

crista_b

For everyone saying that 1800 is overinflated, just wanted to share my anecdotal evidence that it may not be. When running about 4.25 miles, my HRM (I know it's still not the most accurate way to log calorie burn, but it's more accurate than MFP or online calculators and the most accurate method I have) says I burn around 850 calories so 10 miles would be around 1800 for me too. I weigh about the same as OP (within 15lbs difference), and my HR during those runs is usually around 80-90% of max.

hopefaithlove24

could someone plzz explain. if the idea of losing weight is to BURN more than you eat, y r we suppose to eat back our exercise calories? doesn't that defeat the purpose?

Off course not, MPF gives you a calorie deficit goal already! Youo're not just burning calories when you exercise, you burn calories all day! If you don't eat back your exercise calories your deficit gets way too big

RGv2

For everyone saying that 1800 is overinflated, just wanted to share my anecdotal evidence that it may not be. When running about 4.25 miles, my HRM (I know it's still not the most accurate way to log calorie burn, but it's more accurate than MFP or online calculators and the most accurate method I have) says I burn around 850 calories so 10 miles would be around 1800 for me too. I weigh about the same as OP (within 15lbs difference), and my HR during those runs is usually around 80-90% of max.

Just throwing it out there. Would you run at that same pace for 10 miles?

crista_b

For everyone saying that 1800 is overinflated, just wanted to share my anecdotal evidence that it may not be. When running about 4.25 miles, my HRM (I know it's still not the most accurate way to log calorie burn, but it's more accurate than MFP or online calculators and the most accurate method I have) says I burn around 850 calories so 10 miles would be around 1800 for me too. I weigh about the same as OP (within 15lbs difference), and my HR during those runs is usually around 80-90% of max.

Just throwing it out there. Would you run at that same pace for 10 miles?

Good question. I haven't run 10 miles yet, but I do try to keep a consistent pace. My 4.25 is consistent, hence the high calorie burns since my HR is high during the entire run.

mygrl4meee

I don't know your details but for the record I am 196 lbs and when I run 4 miles I burn around 600 calories. You went more than double so 1800 might not be too far off. Congrats on the amazing run.

RGv2

For everyone saying that 1800 is overinflated, just wanted to share my anecdotal evidence that it may not be. When running about 4.25 miles, my HRM (I know it's still not the most accurate way to log calorie burn, but it's more accurate than MFP or online calculators and the most accurate method I have) says I burn around 850 calories so 10 miles would be around 1800 for me too. I weigh about the same as OP (within 15lbs difference), and my HR during those runs is usually around 80-90% of max.

Just throwing it out there. Would you run at that same pace for 10 miles?

Good question. I haven't run 10 miles yet, but I do try to keep a consistent pace. My 4.25 is consistent, hence the high calorie burns since my HR is high during the entire run.

Fair enough, but comparing the burn of a 4.25 mile run at 80-90% to a 10 miler is kind of apples to oranges IMHO. I'll stop hijacking the thread though.

crista_b

For everyone saying that 1800 is overinflated, just wanted to share my anecdotal evidence that it may not be. When running about 4.25 miles, my HRM (I know it's still not the most accurate way to log calorie burn, but it's more accurate than MFP or online calculators and the most accurate method I have) says I burn around 850 calories so 10 miles would be around 1800 for me too. I weigh about the same as OP (within 15lbs difference), and my HR during those runs is usually around 80-90% of max.

Just throwing it out there. Would you run at that same pace for 10 miles?

Good question. I haven't run 10 miles yet, but I do try to keep a consistent pace. My 4.25 is consistent, hence the high calorie burns since my HR is high during the entire run.

Fair enough, but comparing the burn of a 4.25 mile run at 80-90% to a 10 miler is kind of apples to oranges IMHO. I'll stop hijacking the thread though.

I understand. That's why I said it was anecdotal and that it "may not" be overinflated.

It's nice to occasionally have an actual, respectful conversation on here sometimes. Some people don't know how to do that. :flowerforyou:

I'll stop hijacking now too.

Algerjab

Definitely need to eat more than 1600 a day if you are going to run that far. You do not want to be at a huge deficit, maybe just 400-1000 a day not much more than that.

Calliope610

I should also clarified that I don't usually run as far as I did tonight I just wanted to see how far I could go and I made 10 and a half miles my normal Run is from 2 to 4 miles.

I wouldn't worry about it if this is an anomaly.