Should I Eat Back The Calories?

ncrugbyprop

Let me add a little perspective on severe calorie restriction diets and its effects:

"This observation was made by researchers at Rockefeller University. Researchers looked at the effect of different daily caloric deficits on weight loss. As might be expected, the fewer calories the subjects consumed, the more weight they lost. What wasn’t expected was where the weight loss came from. In individuals who moderately reduced their daily caloric intake, 91% of the loss was fat and only 9% was muscle. But in subjects who severely reduced their daily caloric intake, fat represented 48% of the total weight loss and muscle 42%. In other words, the greater the daily calorie restriction, the greater the loss of muscle mass. For endurance athletes, loss of muscle mass can produce a decrease in strength, power and a decline in overall performance..

This research also explained why the longer one is on a diet that severely restricts calories, the harder it is to keep losing weight. As the body loses more muscle mass, the body’s overall metabolic rate decreases, since a resting muscle cell burns almost eight times more energy per day than a fat cell."

Holly_Roman_Empire

Because overweight people are so great at knowing when they're hungry or not hungry. :huh:

I could have sworn that MFP gives you goals to stay within. Isn't using this goals system all about learning a different way to feel about and look at food? These goals are also suppose to help us eat when we're hungry but eat the right things and not a lot of it. So, if you have eaten only 1200 calories, and you still have another 800 calories to go, and you're hungry, why the *kitten* can't you rely on your hunger signals and eat? That's not rhetorical either. Please explain to me why an overweight person with calories left on their goal can not eat because they're hungry.

Edit to add: If a person has calories left and they are hungry, then they should probably eat. Not sure where you were going with that one. My point was that if an overweight person simply ate when they were hungry, they probably wouldn't be overweight.

One day of not eating exercise calories is fine.
Not eating 200 calories left in your day today and saving it for tomorrow so you can eat more is fine.
Only eating a portion of your exercise calories to cover inaccurate burns is fine.

Having a consistently large calorie deficit over a long period of time is not fine. This is why:

Let me add a little perspective on severe calorie restriction diets and its effects:

"This observation was made by researchers at Rockefeller University. Researchers looked at the effect of different daily caloric deficits on weight loss. As might be expected, the fewer calories the subjects consumed, the more weight they lost. What wasn’t expected was where the weight loss came from. In individuals who moderately reduced their daily caloric intake, 91% of the loss was fat and only 9% was muscle. But in subjects who severely reduced their daily caloric intake, fat represented 48% of the total weight loss and muscle 42%. In other words, the greater the daily calorie restriction, the greater the loss of muscle mass. For endurance athletes, loss of muscle mass can produce a decrease in strength, power and a decline in overall performance..

This research also explained why the longer one is on a diet that severely restricts calories, the harder it is to keep losing weight. As the body loses more muscle mass, the body’s overall metabolic rate decreases, since a resting muscle cell burns almost eight times more energy per day than a fat cell."

I can also attest to the fact that there are other unwanted side effects from not eating enough calories. Things like hair loss, dry skin, and brittle nails are signs of inadequate nutrition that aren't exclusive to anorexics.

GodzRN

Thanks this was very helpful for me!!

biggsterjackster

Only, if you are hungry.

diannethegeek

Only, if you are hungry.

This post is only 3 pages long and most of the discussion relevant to this particular comment is happening on page 3. You might have at least skimmed it before posting.

Holly_Roman_Empire

Ok, so someone let me know if I've got this straight, please:

When we signed up on MFP, we entered our weight, age, etc. and how active we are, then entered how much weight we wanted to lose.

MFP came up with a calorie number that, WITHOUT EXERCISE, would achieve the desired weight loss through diet change alone.

ADDING exercise, we need to eat back the calories burned to remain at the initial number to maintain healthy weight loss. Correct? Not eating those calories back could result in unhealthy, unsustainable weight loss, or potentially put the body into emergency conservation mode, right?

That's correct.

I recommend to at least eat a majority of them. If you stop losing weight, reevaluate whether or not you are logging your food and exercise correctly.

chsa22

Ok, so someone let me know if I've got this straight, please:

When we signed up on MFP, we entered our weight, age, etc. and how active we are, then entered how much weight we wanted to lose.

MFP came up with a calorie number that, WITHOUT EXERCISE, would achieve the desired weight loss through diet change alone.

ADDING exercise, we need to eat back the calories burned to remain at the initial number to maintain healthy weight loss. Correct? Not eating those calories back could result in unhealthy, unsustainable weight loss, or potentially put the body into emergency conservation mode, right?

Exactly!!

chsa22

Let me add a little perspective on severe calorie restriction diets and its effects:

"This observation was made by researchers at Rockefeller University. Researchers looked at the effect of different daily caloric deficits on weight loss. As might be expected, the fewer calories the subjects consumed, the more weight they lost. What wasn’t expected was where the weight loss came from. In individuals who moderately reduced their daily caloric intake, 91% of the loss was fat and only 9% was muscle. But in subjects who severely reduced their daily caloric intake, fat represented 48% of the total weight loss and muscle 42%. In other words, the greater the daily calorie restriction, the greater the loss of muscle mass. For endurance athletes, loss of muscle mass can produce a decrease in strength, power and a decline in overall performance..

This research also explained why the longer one is on a diet that severely restricts calories, the harder it is to keep losing weight. As the body loses more muscle mass, the body’s overall metabolic rate decreases, since a resting muscle cell burns almost eight times more energy per day than a fat cell."

Thanks for posting, very interesting, and backs up what a few of us are trying to explain.

HartJames

Let me add a little perspective on severe calorie restriction diets and its effects:

"This observation was made by researchers at Rockefeller University. Researchers looked at the effect of different daily caloric deficits on weight loss. As might be expected, the fewer calories the subjects consumed, the more weight they lost. What wasn’t expected was where the weight loss came from. In individuals who moderately reduced their daily caloric intake, 91% of the loss was fat and only 9% was muscle. But in subjects who severely reduced their daily caloric intake, fat represented 48% of the total weight loss and muscle 42%. In other words, the greater the daily calorie restriction, the greater the loss of muscle mass. For endurance athletes, loss of muscle mass can produce a decrease in strength, power and a decline in overall performance..

This research also explained why the longer one is on a diet that severely restricts calories, the harder it is to keep losing weight. As the body loses more muscle mass, the body’s overall metabolic rate decreases, since a resting muscle cell burns almost eight times more energy per day than a fat cell."

YES!

True story: I lost 118 pounds 5 years ago. I exercised 5 days a week and ate 1200-1300 cals a day. I lost so much weight so quickly that I was scared there was something wrong with me! It was all too easy (the first 80 anyway). My Dr & trainers kept telling me I was doing great!

I was not healthy. Just smaller. Deflated. A smaller person with likely a higher fat composition by % AND I totally screwed my metabolism up.

Not sustainable. Later, I could eat 2,000 cals a day and burn 1,000 and GAIN. It became this depressing cycle of gain lose and every gain was bigger than what I would lose by the time the cycle began again. Before long I had regained quite a bit of weight. Then I went through 1.5 years of IVF drugs & hormones. Well, here I am. 60lbs back.

Now, I am a hell of a lot smarter and know exactly what to do, except 3/4 months later I have not lost a thing. Same 10lbs keep coming and going irregardless of my diet (80% clean unprocessed food), exercise (4 weight sessions + 4/5 cardio p/wk) and that I weigh EVERYTHING, keep my macros on point and use a Fitbit & Polar. I have tried tweaking several things over the last 3 months and I am frustrated beyond belief!

I wish that I hadn't screwed up my metabolism the first go-around

I wish that I had STARTED by eating back all of my cals (minus living/breathing burn)

I wish I knew then that by losing all that muscle, any gains would mean I was fuller of actual fat that would be so much harder to lose.

I wish that I had cut back on the cardio, lifted heavy & let my body have time to recover

I wish I knew why now that I'm doing everything right, nothing is happening.

toutmonpossible

These numbers can never be completely accurate. Most people consume more calories than they think and burn less than they believe during exercise. I would not eat more unless I was extremely hungry and lacked energy. Weigh yourself frequently and make adjustments.

sloth3toes

Only, if you are hungry.

This post is only 3 pages long and most of the discussion relevant to this particular comment is happening on page 3. You might have at least skimmed it before posting.

That's the MFP way.

YES!

True story:..........................

I was not healthy. Just smaller. Deflated. ............... I totally screwed my metabolism up.


I wish that I hadn't screwed up my metabolism the first go-around

I wish that I had STARTED by eating back all of my cals (minus living/breathing burn)

I wish I knew then that by losing all that muscle, any gains would mean I was fuller of actual fat that would be so much harder to lose.

I wish that I had cut back on the cardio, lifted heavy & let my body have time to recover

I wish I knew why now that I'm doing everything right, nothing is happening.

Thanks for sharing that. It might help one other person not go through what you are going through.

Spewze72

I'm not especially prolific on the boards and I don't broadcast my opinion much. I'm no expert, and I'm obese, what do I know. The OPs original question is perfectly valid and there's a shed load of solid advice within the first three pages.

However. The constant repetition of unsustainable eating strategies, the poor understanding of the MFP (and TDEE) "methods", and the stubborn refusal to self-educate and UPDATE knowledge - to base comprehension on contemporary and scientifically supported research - by otherwise intelligent human beings who frequent this site for months at a time, frustrates the *kitten* out of me. Sometimes it makes me doubt what I'm doing.

To those MFP veterans - and all the other contributors - who have the wisdom and patience to continue to argue for reason and common sense, we are genuinely lucky to have you.

PS to OP - eat them back if you're using MFP settings. And make sure you deduct your BMR cals from your HRM readings, that the settings are accurate and the batteries are good!! You'll be grand, keep reading, keep an open mind, and remember that a moderate deficit and eating the things you like in moderation, is better than being deprived - you'll sustain it longer.

Holly_Roman_Empire

I'm not especially prolific on the boards and I don't broadcast my opinion much. I'm no expert, and I'm obese, what do I know. The OPs original question is perfectly valid and there's a shed load of solid advice within the first three pages.

However. The constant repetition of unsustainable eating strategies, the poor understanding of the MFP (and TDEE) "methods", and the stubborn refusal to self-educate and UPDATE knowledge - to base comprehension on contemporary and scientifically supported research - by otherwise intelligent human beings who frequent this site for months at a time, frustrates the *kitten* out of me. Sometimes it makes me doubt what I'm doing.

To those MFP veterans - and all the other contributors - who have the wisdom and patience to continue to argue for reason and common sense, we are genuinely lucky to have you.

PS to OP - eat them back if you're using MFP settings. And make sure you deduct your BMR cals from your HRM readings, that the settings are accurate and the batteries are good!! You'll be grand, keep reading, keep an open mind, and remember that a moderate deficit and eating the things you like in moderation, is better than being deprived - you'll sustain it longer.

:drinker::flowerforyou:

Shoechick5

I might be wrong, but I thought that when you use a HRM, it is calculating both the calories from doing exercise PLUS the calories from just being alive (resting metabolism calories). Since MFP already takes into account your RM calories, then the HRM calories might be double-counting those.

Again, I'm not 100% sure, so maybe someone with more expertise can confirm or correct this.

I believe you are correct. We hike a trail on weekends which is just under 2 hours. My fitbit gives me about 350 - 400 calories back (which I eat). My HRM was between 550 - 650 so for me, it's definitely taking into account "Breathing, etc"

changing4life

save to read later

robdawg81

how much you weigh also changes the amount of calories you burn, if a large person walks for 30 minutes, and a smaller person walks 30 mins at the same pace the larger one burns more calories

SuggaD

I have to agree with those that say listen to your body. I eat some of my exercise calories back, but there is no way I could eat them all back. Nor would I even want to. I endurance cycle on a regular basis, which burns lots of calories (btw, 1000 for a spin class is definitely not accurate), and to eat back my calories on many cycling days, I'd have to eat 4500 calories or more. Not. Going. To. Happen. At this point, I focus more on my macros and eating to be full. If I'm hungry, I eat. If I'm not, I'm not. I'm not going to force it. And I'm not eating lean muscle. I lift regularly and have minimal body fat. Besides, I know from experience that I don't have the metabolism of Michael Phelps so I cant eat 4500 calories and maintain my weight; I gain. So, I'll just continue to do what works for me despite what the know-it-alls think.

ChrisM8971

If you follow the calorie goal set by MFP then eat back the portion of your calorie burns that are accurate. How do you tell if they are accurate? Eat a portion back say 25% and if you lose faster than your set goal per week start eating more back until you achieve your weight loss goal per week.

I eat back a calculated portion although a lot of my weight loss was achieved without exercise just using the MFP goal calories.

Many people will also say that they don't eat back their exercise calories and they still lose weight at the rate they set as a goal in MFP. While thats great it also means that you are either eating more than you think or burning a lot less calories than you think (or have a medical condition)

JKent2244

Having read through all the posts there is some good advice and bad here. However I think a lot of people misunderstand how to make the best use of MFP.

In regards to eating back your calories, it is both yes and no. It very much depends on how you have MFP set up.

If you have it set up so that you are counted as 'sedentary' then yes, you are going to want to eat back some of your calories burned from exercise.If you have MFP set as sedentary then it will provide you with your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate). Your BMR is the amount of calories your body burns at rest. That's not moving, not exercising, just simply existing So you'll want to eat back SOME of the calories you've burned, so you're at around a 500 calorie deficit for the day. This will result in a loss of around 1 pound per week. Please note as you lose more weight you will get metabolic adaptation and thus require either more exercise, to cut calories further or a combination of both. It'll also change your BMR and maintenance calories. That's for another time though.

However, if you have set MFP as that you workout a certain amount per week, it will work out your maintenance calories for you. From here you can either choose to lose weight or gain weight. The maintenance presented to you, include the fact that you exercise x amount of times per week. Say for instance, such as myself, have a maintenance of 2650 calories per day. By selecting weight loss, it provides me with a calorific goal of 2150. If I choose to gain weight then my calorific goal for the day is 3150. In this case, one would eat to these calories AND NOT eat back their calories from exercise - don't even include exercise on here.

Below is a link that is would be extremely useful to just about everyone on here to use and will settle the matter for good:

http://iifym.com/iifym-calculator/

Follow the steps and if you know your BF% it'll only make it more accurate. This will provide you with your calories and your macros for the day, that you eat to and stay at (DO NOT EAT BACK CALORIES BURNED). For those unaware of how to change your calorie and macro goals for yourself do as follows:

Home > Goals > Change Goals > Custom

You will need to fiddle with the macro % in order to get it close to what the above link provides you with.

Once again to reiterate: If you have your MFP set at sedentary then YES, you need to eag back SOME of your calories (so that you are at a 500 calorie deficit). If you have MFP set to include that you work out, or have used the above link to work out your calories and macors, then NO, you do not eat any of them back.

If anyone wants to discuss anything else, then please just message me or feel free to add me.

Jonathan.