Eating Back Exercise Calories

ShannonMpls

That's why I said you do require food regularly. Body=car is not an apt analogy. We lose weight by using our fat stores to fuel activity.

Well, that is a gross over simplification too that is not correct either.

Your activity is going to be fueled by some ratio of carbs to fat depending on how intense it is, more intense, more carbs. In fact until you get to higher reaches you burn the same quantity of fat, until none going anaerobic.

You not eating enough to have enough carbs available doesn't change that ratio in any substantial way, all it causes is protein to be converted to glucose to be used as fuel along with the fat.

Hence the reason you lose muscle mass when you diet, unless you do several things right to prevent or minimize it.

Your phrase would be closer to reality to say we use our fat stores to fuel inactivity.

If you eat at maintenance, you will not lose weight.

If you eat at a deficit, you will (for 99% of healthy people without hormonal or metabolic issues)

"If your car gets 30 MPG and you put 1 gallon of gas in it you are going to be hard pressed to drive 40 miles" suggests maintenance-level eating and ignores the body's energy stores. The goal is to get 40 miles out of one gallon of gas if your goal is to lose weight.

OBVIOUSLY it's more complex than that. I know this. I lost 130+ pounds, have been maintaining for over a year, and engage in endurance activities.

Despite complexities of fat burning, glycogen usage, and weight loss, the car/fuel analogy is a bad one.

The end.

scubasuenc

I actually asked my health professional this question. She is the one who recommended MFP to me and has used it to lose 60+ lbs herself. Since I have so much to lose, her recommendation was not to eat my exercise calories back, but to try to get close to the recommended MFP base calories. Since that is about 1500 calories per day, that seemed like a lot to me, but I admit it is working. Most days I eat between 1200 and 1500 calories. On days when I exercise 2x per day and get an 800 or 900 calorie exercise bonus I am likely to eat some of them.

So far it has been working for me. I recognize I might have to change when I've lost some of the excess weight and my body doesn't have so much readily available fat to burn.

I think you need to figure out what works for you. If you feel like you are starving when you don't eat your exercise calories back, then eat them back.

WhiteRabbit1313

My philosophy is that the bigger deficit you create through exercise, the more you should consider eating those back. I wouldn't worry about it too much with your walking, but I wouldn't feel guilty at all for eating back those calories if you have a day where you feel you need some extra calories. If you start doing more intense exercises, however, I would recommend eating those back at least partially so you're not fatiguing your body through not giving it enough energy (in the form of calories).

^^This. I walk about 4-5 extra miles per week, but I don't think it's enough to qualify for eating my calories back.

BritBrat1985

You should burn 500 more calories than what you eat to see changes

Mokey41

You should burn 500 more calories than what you eat to see changes

Just no.

heybales

You should burn 500 more calories than what you eat to see changes

Burn daily in all activity? True.

Burn in just exercise? Ridiculous.

But are you aware that your eating goal on MFP already has a deficit to your estimated daily burn of all non-exercise activity, based on your selection of activity level?

heybales

I actually asked my health professional this question. She is the one who recommended MFP to me and has used it to lose 60+ lbs herself. Since I have so much to lose, her recommendation was not to eat my exercise calories back, but to try to get close to the recommended MFP base calories. Since that is about 1500 calories per day, that seemed like a lot to me, but I admit it is working. Most days I eat between 1200 and 1500 calories. On days when I exercise 2x per day and get an 800 or 900 calorie exercise bonus I am likely to eat some of them.

So far it has been working for me. I recognize I might have to change when I've lost some of the excess weight and my body doesn't have so much readily available fat to burn.

I think you need to figure out what works for you. If you feel like you are starving when you don't eat your exercise calories back, then eat them back.

When you create a bigger than the recommended deficit by using MFP wrong - what exactly do you think the weight is that you are losing?

And why wouldn't you even reach that daily goal you've set? Are you willing to stop trying to lose weight that far away from goal weight too?

So when your body has gotten used to eating at 1500 (if you even reach that) with this level of exercise - where exactly do you go when it stops. Eating 1200 for that level of exercise after 20 lbs?
And where would maintenance be for that if that stops being effective?

Might want to read up on the future consequences of your decisions now. If you think you'd enjoy eating at maintenance 300-400 less than that goal weight would otherwise have as TDEE, then fine.
But for most, that spells failure having to always keep such a fine line on their eating levels.

This is more of an explanation of what is generally meant by starvation mode, ie adaptive thermogenesis, not starving, as many in the world are doing.
Plus the studies as to what you can do to yourself that you may have wished you had not done and how long that negative effect may last - more studies brought out in the thread too as to possible long term consequences.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss?

One of those situations of how you can effect your ease of maintenance in the future by your choices now.

You can actually be more informed than your health care professional, who may not keep up on recent research. Which in the US if it's a Dr, their required knowledge on nutrition is 1 class 1 semester, unless they pursued that direction more. GP recommended nutritional advice can be very outdated and non-informed.

WalkingAlong

When you create a bigger than the recommended deficit by using MFP wrong - what exactly do you think the weight is that you are losing?

Do you really believe MFP has the magic recipe for losing only fat and sparing LBM? And medical professionals haven't yet caught on? Even weight loss specialists?

So when your body has gotten used to eating at 1500 (if you even reach that) with this level of exercise - where exactly do you go when it stops. Eating 1200 for that level of exercise after 20 lbs?
And where would maintenance be for that if that stops being effective?

When what stops? Weight loss at 1500 calorie intake? I think you vastly overestimate adaptive thermogenesis.

I never can understand with the people who think MFP's 'eating back' method is some magical LBM sparing secret how they can account for the person who burns 2000 calories sedentary and eats 1500. He's not 'eating back' and he's fine with a 500 calorie per day deficit, right? But if someone with an RMR of 1600 who does 400 calories of 'exercise' a day, they have to eat more than the sedentary guy. A deficit is a deficit, whether your RMR is burning up the deficit calories or your 'exercise' is. Why would there be any need for one person to 'eat back' but not the other?

heybales

When you create a bigger than the recommended deficit by using MFP wrong - what exactly do you think the weight is that you are losing?

Do you really believe MFP has the magic recipe for losing only fat and sparing LBM? And medical professionals haven't yet caught on? Even weight loss specialists?

So when your body has gotten used to eating at 1500 (if you even reach that) with this level of exercise - where exactly do you go when it stops. Eating 1200 for that level of exercise after 20 lbs?
And where would maintenance be for that if that stops being effective?

When what stops? Weight loss at 1500 calorie intake? I think you vastly overestimate adaptive thermogenesis.

I never can understand with the people who think MFP's 'eating back' method is some magical LBM sparing secret how they can account for the person who burns 2000 calories sedentary and eats 1500. He's not 'eating back' and he's fine with a 500 calorie per day deficit, right? But if someone with an RMR of 1600 who does 400 calories of 'exercise' a day, they have to eat more than the sedentary guy. A deficit is a deficit, whether your RMR is burning up the deficit calories or your 'exercise' is. Why would there be any need for one person to 'eat back' but not the other?

MFP has no magic way of doing it - mainly because people keep shooting themselves in the metabolism using the tool wrong. But at least there's a chance if you do it right. Though even there, the protein goal is too low to help.

You can easily see with experience vast majority select sedentary, true or not, they want the "safe" side of the decision, lower is better.

2lb weekly weight loss, they want faster and it's an option (though not recommended). Lower is better.

They see the notice of "in 5 weeks" when they undereat to their goal calories, and figure that's even better so undereat more often and /or bigger gaps.

They don't understand why after exercise is logged the goal went up and don't think about it because of never really understanding what's going on, and really love the 5 weeks notice now, so don't eat back exercise.

No - by no means is MFP a LBM sparing tool by the majority of users.

And weight loss specialists stay in business by showing big results - who is going to keep paying for their services without getting the results they think they should see, especially compared to weight-loss claims they see everywhere else.
And in fact they benefit when they cause the negative long term results, because the customer remembers they lost really well with this person in the past, and figures it'll be good to pay them to help them lose it again after regain.
Follow the money.
Also, they don't even use MFP style, they usually use the traditional TDEE charts that includes exercise, then take off a deficit.
Apples and oranges comparison. Or cake and cookies.

When weight loss stops at 1500 was indeed my comment.
And no, studies have shown up to 20% reduction in TDEE NOT based on all the expected reasons of less LBM and moving around less mass daily. You will literally have to eat up to 20% less than if you were already at that weight without weight loss.

So yes, it can stop at a higher number like 1500. Then you gotta move on down. Now you have to keep the suppressed TDEE at higher numbers by exercising, if you want any kind of calorie level you could maintain and allow you to enjoy food. You stop exercise for a week, sick, vacation, ect, and now your suppressed TDEE is 1200. Bummer if on vacation eating more, now everything above that is surplus, and not while exercising to really use it to benefit the body.

Your last paragraph is using some incorrect comparisons and terms and shows you don't understand what MFP is doing. RMR is resting metabolism, right, not maintenance, calorie burn?
So I'm assuming you meant person has sedentary maintenance of 1600, and then exercises 400 calories. Meaning their TDEE for the day is the same 2000 as the sedentary person with a TDEE of 2000. Guess what happens in both cases with 500 cal deficit?

So you do realize that in both cases, their eating goal already has a deficit in it matching the goal they selected.
Well, if you don't exercise, that is lower TDEE, and lower eating goal.
If you do exercise, that is higher TDEE, and higher eating goal.

Better way to lay out what you are trying to say using 1 person.

Monday
2000 sedentary maintenance no exercise (1600 BMR)
1500 daily goal given and eaten

Tuesday
2400 maintenance because of exercise of 400+2000 normal sedentary
1900 daily goal given and eaten

Same 500 cal deficit each day.

And you are very correct that if the person was sedentary all the time, this would NOT be LBM sparing, but they would probably be burning the typical 15-20% LBM along with fat mass.

WalkingAlong

I do understand MFP, I don't buy in so I speak in more general terms.

By weight loss specialists, I meant like the researchers who publish, not the corner medspa with their HCG plans.

I'll leave it at this. I think the LBM- losing phobia here is waaayyyy too connected to some mythical 'right' calorie level that people think they've discovered, and that there are advantages to losing weight in a more expedient manner, too. It's not all '2 lbs a week is BAD, .5 lbs a week is THE WAY.' 2 lbs a week isn't considered dangerous. 1200 calories per day isn't considered dangerous.

Most dieters don't go overboard with over-restricting, though there is a tendency for teens to do it for a short time and post about it, if you ask me. I think a lot more dieters quit because they under-restrict and expect results too soon. Aiming for 2 lbs/week is one way to fix that.

oc1timoco

Dont be to concerned about your thoughts about a low calorie burn. If you are doing more now than before you will see progress. As that happens you will become more active due to your success. But yes eat back some calories proportional to maintaining a responsible weekly weight loss. Eat real food too. Not 3 smoothies a day and a bowel of green beans, you cant stick to that for a lifetime. Regulate your loss to 1 or 1 1/2 lbs a week. Good eating.

SLLRunner

How many of you are eating back your exercise calories? In full or partial?

When I started MFP last month, I was not exercising. Since then, I have started walking a few miles a day (which burns very little thanks to an 18 min/ mile pace :frown: ) and doing strength training and cardio a few times a week. I really don't feel that I'm burning enough right now to justify eating extra calories, but I've never been this motivated to lose the weight, and I really want to make sure I'm going about it the "right" way.

Stats (if it helps): I am 5' 2.5" (yes that half is important). My weigh-in this morning was 181 lbs (though I my official weigh day is Tuesday). I started at 190 and change. I have 1370 calories for the day, and I use them all.

If you chose to exercise you must eat most or all of your exercise calories back, assuming that your exercise calories are accurate. Warning: MFP highly overestimates calorie burns so you need to do some research for the correct amount, unless you have a heart rate monitor which calculates the calories burned for you.

The reason you eat exercise calories is to properly fuel your body for your workouts.

So, if your base calorie allowance is 1,370 and you go out an do a forty minute run and burn 400 calories but don't eat them back, your NET calories for the day is 970, which is below your basic metabolic rate. However, when you eat back your 400 calories, you satisfy your NET calories of 1,370. The reasoning behind this is that your calorie deficit is already figured out when MFP gives you your 1,370 calories.

SLLRunner

You should burn 500 more calories than what you eat to see changes

I see this is your first post. Welcome. Do you mean you should or should not eat back exercise calories?

SLLRunner

I do understand MFP, I don't buy in so I speak in more general terms.

By weight loss specialists, I meant like the researchers who publish, not the corner medspa with their HCG plans.

I'll leave it at this. I think the LBM- losing phobia here is waaayyyy too connected to some mythical 'right' calorie level that people think they've discovered, and that there are advantages to losing weight in a more expedient manner, too. It's not all '2 lbs a week is BAD, .5 lbs a week is THE WAY.' 2 lbs a week isn't considered dangerous. 1200 calories per day isn't considered dangerous.

Most dieters don't go overboard with over-restricting, though there is a tendency for teens to do it for a short time and post about it, if you ask me. I think a lot more dieters quit because they under-restrict and expect results too soon. Aiming for 2 lbs/week is one way to fix that.

There is no mythical calorie number to lose weight. It's all through trial and error. Why do I eat my exercise calories back even though my base calories are 1,670 now? Because I workout every day and I want to properly fuel my body for those workouts. Now, MFP said I am supposed to lose .5 pounds per week with a lower calorie allowance (I had my activity setting at lightly active), but did I? No, not me. I lost 1.5-2 pounds a week. I set my calorie allowance to active to see what works for me.

MFP is not magic in any way, it is just a tool to help you become accountable to your health. That's all it is. Now, the forums are magical in a way because I learn a lot here, get support, and have learned to do my own research despite what people say While there are some sages here, there are a lot of posters that provide, to put it nicely, inaccurate information.

Now, I eat approximately 2,000 calories a day, which includes my exercise calories, and 1,670 if I do not exercise that day, and I'm still losing weight. For me, this is the amount I need to get off the last few pounds. It will be different when I am ready to maintain, though.

However, I do not arbitrarily recommend that people eat the same as I do. I say to find the number that works for you, but be sure to eat back exercise calories because it properly fuels your body.

As for dieting, I refuse to diet because that's not what losing weight and maintaining weight is all about-it's about a lifestyle change. I will never diet again, I will only adjust calorie intake to what is appropriate for me at any given time.

WalkingAlong

"If you chose to exercise you must eat most or all of your exercise calories back."

That's the part I take issue with. There is a logical fallacy here that says you need to 'eat back' to properly fuel your workouts. Your body's functions, all of them, are fueled just fine by stored calories or today's intake alike. The calories aren't dated.

If you need to fuel today's run with today's calories, why can you use last month's excess calories to fuel some other portion of today's burn? It just doesn't matter where your deficit comes from, just that you maintain a sensible deficit level and a sensible food intake, which is generally considered to be 1000/day deficit and 1200/day intake.

jacksonpt

"If you chose to exercise you must eat most or all of your exercise calories back."

That's the part I take issue with. There is a logical fallacy here that says you need to 'eat back' to properly fuel your workouts. Your body's functions, all of them, are fueled just fine by stored calories or today's intake alike. The calories aren't dated.

If you need to fuel today's run with today's calories, why can you use last month's excess calories to fuel some other portion of today's burn? It just doesn't matter where your deficit comes from, just that you maintain a sensible deficit level and a sensible food intake, which is generally considered to be 1000/day deficit and 1200/day intake.

You're right.

The problem with threads like these (especially ones that are asked multiple times daily) is that few people either know enough or care enough to post context with their answers. An absolute "yes, eat them back" or "no, don't eat them" is wrong is virtually every instance.

There's weight loss then there's healthy weight loss... there are several ways to estimate your daily calorie need, not to mention that most people suck at estimating calorie intake and calorie burns. And I haven't even mentioned goals, sustainability, etc.

There are some very general guidelines, and there is some wiggle room based on diet, available fat stores, workouts, etc, but ultimately it comes down to picking a reasonable starting point and then trial and error.

.

heybales

"If you chose to exercise you must eat most or all of your exercise calories back."

That's the part I take issue with. There is a logical fallacy here that says you need to 'eat back' to properly fuel your workouts. Your body's functions, all of them, are fueled just fine by stored calories or today's intake alike. The calories aren't dated.

If you need to fuel today's run with today's calories, why can you use last month's excess calories to fuel some other portion of today's burn? It just doesn't matter where your deficit comes from, just that you maintain a sensible deficit level and a sensible food intake, which is generally considered to be 1000/day deficit and 1200/day intake.

True, absolutes are hard to state when people start off on wrong foot. Like where does 1000 and 1200 being sensible come from? Or is that rather maximum and minimum?

That phrase indeed should have a caveat to it (which it did in the post), but something like "for best continued success, start with ....". Then reasons can be given as to why recommendation.

But there is absolutely a problem of under-eating and trying, perhaps for a short bit succeeding, until your body adapts by slowing down your performance. Read around on MFP, go look at diet programs. Absolutely do ones go to extremes, until they have yo-yo dieted their lives away and come to realize what is important, or learn from others before hitting that road.

And actually, if you workout intense everyday as many go gung-ho with, no you can't use last months excess from fat stores - it's going to come from carbs currently stored, no way around it, or a vast majority will.

And if you are undereating for your level of activity, you very easily have constantly short glucose stores, just a fact that happens on a diet, even more depending on amount of deficit, level of carb eating, and intensity/frequency of cardio.

So actually, at intense levels in that case, not only are you NOT dipping in to last months excess, you don't even have the needed levels now for day after day, not without dipping in to another energy source.

Now, once the workout is done, very true as you say, on in to normal fat burning mode. Food eating replenishing those glucose stores to some level, and current activity energy needs.

Sensible is answer - but for long term success, what is that? Sensible to lose weight but some muscle mass also? That's going to be bad for future, actually current too, success. But may be acceptable.

And 1200 minimum, not maximum, minimum for reasons of safety is for sedentary woman to get all her nutrition in with average diet. So to have that 1000 cal deficit (which is not reasonable in all cases unless muscle mass loss is acceptable) means a total daily burn of 2200 calories is somehow needed. Which isn't that hard really unless very short and light. In which case the 1000 cal deficit isn't reasonable.

or are you imagining that eating that 1200 minimum in total not net, and taking that 1000 deficit max, will somehow see long term success?

onmyown326

MFP is setup to eat your calories back. As long as you don't fall below 1200 consistently you should be fine.

Question-why is falling below 1200 a day bad? I don't normally, but sometimes I do.

Mr_Knight

If you need to fuel today's run with today's calories, why can you use last month's excess calories to fuel some other portion of today's burn?

Because a one hour, 10k run for me burns ~1000 calories, and it takes my body about 16 hours to metabolize 1000 calories worth of energy from fat stores. Which means my body *has* to hit the glycogen and intramuscular fat stores. Which means if I don't replenish them - ie, eat a significant amount of my exercise burn back - my body will be physically unable to keep running 10k.

onmyown326

I personally do not eat back all of my calories-I leave 200-250 left. I do insanity so I burn anywhere from 300-400 calories. But leaving a deficient of about 200 a day-if your buring a lot-is good.