Calories in Calories out Question

rachdlew

My trainer threatened my life if I did not eat all mine back lol. does eating all the calories back make the progress slower?

Sure it would slow your weight loss. If you're eating back all that you're burning, what's the point? We don't have the information your personal trainer has? Are you already on a severe calorie deficit diet? Do you need to lose weight? If you don't need to lose weight and you're just trying to get in shape, that would be one reason why you would eat calories back.

I am over weight. I am considered obese.

When I put my information in MFP it says I should be eating 2250 a day. We started there but it was entirely too much food for me so we went to 1800 and then 1600.

SnuggleSmacks

My trainer threatened my life if I did not eat all mine back lol. does eating all the calories back make the progress slower?

Sure it would slow your weight loss. If you're eating back all that you're burning, what's the point? We don't have the information your personal trainer has? Are you already on a severe calorie deficit diet? Do you need to lose weight? If you don't need to lose weight and you're just trying to get in shape, that would be one reason why you would eat calories back.

Ummm...huh?

By that theory, if she ate 1600 cals, and then worked out and burned 1600 cals, netting ZERO CALS FOR THE DAY, then you don't think the poor girl should eat something? Really?

Her calorie goal already includes a deficit. If she works out, she is creating an even larger deficit, potentially to the point of being unhealthy since her net calories would dip well below 1200. Eating back exercise calories allows you to maintain a healthy deficit, not an insane one which could damage your health.

segovm

Ummm...huh?

By that theory, if she ate 1600 cals, and then worked out and burned 1600 cals, netting ZERO CALS FOR THE DAY, then you don't think the poor girl should eat something? Really?

Her calorie goal already includes a deficit. If she works out, she is creating an even larger deficit, potentially to the point of being unhealthy since her net calories would dip well below 1200. Eating back exercise calories allows you to maintain a healthy deficit, not an insane one which could damage your health.

Not to argue but I'm curious if there really is any actual "science" behind the idea that eating 0 net calories is the same as eating nothing at all?

Most days I end up at a negative number for my caloric intake but I eat between 1700-1900 calories and I feel like I am far from starving, I just spend a few hours a day on my bike and feel great.

I've always suspected that someone here just equated net calories with actual calories despite the fact that there really isn't much science to say eating well and exercising a lot is bad for you if you burn more calories than you eat. Seems like as long as I am physically active and feel great there really isn't much of a reason to shove an extra pound or two of bacon inside of me to help me lose weight.

badbradley

I only eat a portion back. I like leave some to account for miscalculations in calorie burns and calorie intake.

This.

myfitnesspale3

I only eat a portion back. I like leave some to account for miscalculations in calorie burns and calorie intake.

Yup - even with a heart rate monitor, it seems hard to pin down what the real burn is.

59gi

I do not eat my exercise expenditure, because I want this expenditure to help with weight loss effort My theory is if you are obese, you should not be eating your exercise effort. I like to eat unprocessed foods that include protein, vegetables and Fat. When I have a urge for sweets, I will add fruit.

WalkingAlong

Not to argue but I'm curious if there really is any actual "science" behind the idea that eating 0 net calories is the same as eating nothing at all?

Most days I end up at a negative number for my caloric intake but I eat between 1700-1900 calories and I feel like I am far from starving, I just spend a few hours a day on my bike and feel great.

I've always suspected that someone here just equated net calories with actual calories despite the fact that there really isn't much science to say eating well and exercising a lot is bad for you if you burn more calories than you eat. Seems like as long as I am physically active and feel great there really isn't much of a reason to shove an extra pound or two of bacon inside of me to help me lose weight.

I agree. I read most of the diet books that come down the pike (and they're not 'fads', they have more authority and recognition than MFP, by and large) and have never run across the term 'net calories' or the need to 'eat back' in any of them.

I guess WW is the closest I've seen, with its Activity Points concept which (1) maxes at half your exercise burn and (2) is entirely optional to eat or not. So not really the same at all.

PinkyFett

I don't know. I don't eat all mine back. I either eat none to half back. I have been staying under 1500 for a week or more, except today, and I didn't lose or gain anything at all. So, I don't think it's always as simple as calories in vs calories out. It's all a matter of trial and error and finding what works for you.

rachdlew

From what I understand I am already at a deficit I am suppose to be at 2300 calories but I am only eating 1600. From what I have gathered from my trainer eating back those exercise calories will help me to build and maintain the muscle I am working so hard to get.