Eating back calories - Professional opinions

TrainerRobin

I know that this topic has been beaten to death, but here is my dilemma: I have a degree in nutrition and the "rules" state that a woman needs 1200 calories of food per day, period. There is no mention of eating back exercise calories. I've searched the web and cannot find any professional articles or sites that talk about this idea one way or the other. Does anyone know of any such article, or has anyone spoken to a professional about this topic?

Thanks, Delania

Maybe this will help. Not directly on point, but it may help you answer your question to some degree.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/153704-myth-or-fact-simple-math-3500-calories-one-pound-eat

javamom

I understand the MATH of weight loss and BMR's and all of that. What I am asking is, if I burn 500 calories during exercise, WHY is it bad for me to only eat 1200 calories (example, I rarely eat that little or I feel tired)? WHAT is wrong with trying to lose more than a pound a week?

I think it is frowned upon because your body only really has 700 calories left to work with if you eat 1200 and burn 500. My understanding is that your metabolism will slow down under 1200 net calories.

grumpz

Ok then all I have to say is if you have a Degree in Nutrition then you should know this Answer

I'm asking this as politely as I can, please DO NOT reply to any of my posts in the future. I was asking because I did NOT know the answer and I was looking for a professional source. You are not it.

Hang a sec.....I thought you were the professional. It's a public forum, people are going to make comments you dislike or disagree with. Just move on and don't read it if it offends you this much.

simplywriting

Ok then all I have to say is if you have a Degree in Nutrition then you should know this Answer

I'm asking this as politely as I can, please DO NOT reply to any of my posts in the future. I was asking because I did NOT know the answer and I was looking for a professional source. You are not it.

Hang a sec.....I thought you were the professional. It's a public forum, people are going to make comments you dislike or disagree with. Just move on and don't read it if it offends you this much.

In fairness, a degree in nutrition is not exactly the same thing as a degree in weigh management or something along those lines. I have taken courses in nutrition and we have never discussed calories vs. exercise, so I can see someone being able to ask a valid question. I think the way the person responded was actually VERY rude, whether she IS a professional or not. Oh, and she didn't mention being offended, I think she in fairness, simply asked for no more responses to her questions. Yep, it's a public forum... she can do that too.

ProTFitness

Amen Sister! You should NOT feel stupid! This is a very complex thing and not easy to explain or understand. I have been a Cerified Personal Trainer for over 20 years and if I ever spoke to a client like that I would be OUT OF BUSINESS and OUT OF MY MIND! UNless you get hooked up to Max Vo2 machines on a treadmill you will never really get the correct answer to your Q...some people burn more fat others burn more carbs....it is a mystery unless you get tested. But just relax and follow a clean diet of real foods and no refined carbs and you will be great!

I Have Never or Will ever speak to my clients in what ever way you may be thinking. Very few trainers will go over nutrition with there clients or very little. I am very detailed and as helpful as I can be with my clients as well as being a supportive trainer to help them achive there goals and learn how to FEED there body the right way, I may not have been in the game as long as you but I have been for 7 years and you never quit learning or educating one self on it..

Some Topic on the message boad gets Beaten to Death. That is all I was trying to get across

bowserette

This is a question I've been wondering, too. I had never heard of eating back exercise calories before this site, and I, too, am looking for a scientific basis on this. No offense to everyone on the forums, but you don't always get the most reliable information here. I will look further into it.

luv2ash

I understand the MATH of weight loss and BMR's and all of that. What I am asking is, if I burn 500 calories during exercise, WHY is it bad for me to only eat 1200 calories (example, I rarely eat that little or I feel tired)? WHAT is wrong with trying to lose more than a pound a week?

OK, the theory is that if you eat less than 1200 NET calories your body is NOT getting its desired nutrition to keep you healthy and fit.

Also, if you eat less that 1200 NET for a sustained time then you're going to lower your metabolism eventually, thus making it easier to regain weight in the future when you start to eat 'normally' again.

You CAN lose more than 1lb per week (and indeed you can set your goals on MFP to lose up to 2lbs max). But they say its impossible to actually lose MORE than 2lbs of FAT per week. So, if you're losing more than 2lbs on the scales its going to be lean tissue/muscle/water.

I hope that helps

Good luck :flowerforyou:

I have to disagree, based on my own experience. I am doing Medifast diet, and this diet puts you in a mild state of ketosis, therefore, we are burning fat, our body is looking for fat. I get plenty of protein and I eat 800-1000 calories a day plus burn about 200-350 a day in exercise. I am currently building muscle and losing inches and have lost 68 pounds. My body looks the best it ever has.

darrenw74

I understand the MATH of weight loss and BMR's and all of that. What I am asking is, if I burn 500 calories during exercise, WHY is it bad for me to only eat 1200 calories (example, I rarely eat that little or I feel tired)? WHAT is wrong with trying to lose more than a pound a week?

OK, the theory is that if you eat less than 1200 NET calories your body is NOT getting its desired nutrition to keep you healthy and fit.

Also, if you eat less that 1200 NET for a sustained time then you're going to lower your metabolism eventually, thus making it easier to regain weight in the future when you start to eat 'normally' again.

You CAN lose more than 1lb per week (and indeed you can set your goals on MFP to lose up to 2lbs max). But they say its impossible to actually lose MORE than 2lbs of FAT per week. So, if you're losing more than 2lbs on the scales its going to be lean tissue/muscle/water.

I hope that helps

Good luck :flowerforyou:

You should check out this show called biggest loser
I think the point is that it's not necessarily healthy to lose more than 2 per week, and keep it off.

TrainingWithTonya

I think the confusion comes from your having a standard nutrition education instead of a sports nutrition education. There are actually several different areas of study within the nutrition discipline. In my nutrition minor, we're looking at various aspects of nutrition including the standard dietitian track, sports nutrition, weight loss, and nutritional therapy for various medical conditions. My certifications, however, are specific to sports nutrition and that is the track I plan on taking for my masters. But I've noticed that in the standard tracks and even the weight loss and nutritional therapy tracks they don't always talk about adding exercise calories. However, I have heard all about adding in the exercise calories in several of my classes. Here are some references for you that might help you clear up the confusion in coming from a standard dietitian track.

Nutrition for Health, Fitness, and Sport by Melvin H. Williams pages 445 to 446 (Ninth Edition)

Endurance Sports Nutrition by Suzanne Girard Eberle, MS, RD pages 9 to 10

Sports Nutrition Guidebook by Nancy Clark, MS, RD pages 221 to 222 (Third Edition)

My opinion is that Nancy Clark's book should be a must read for all nutrition students. She gives lots of examples of people who've eaten "correctly" and haven't seen the results they want because of not eating for their activity.

Doberwomann

I hope im not going to get shot down for saying this but wouldnt it be better to take it a day at a time and see how your body reacts to the amount of calories your eating say eat more if you lose too fast or eat less if your not losing any. Is all the mathematics totally necessary. *Runs Away Quickly*

funkyspunky871

I know that this topic has been beaten to death, but here is my dilemma: I have a degree in nutrition and the "rules" state that a woman needs 1200 calories of food per day, period. There is no mention of eating back exercise calories. I've searched the web and cannot find any professional articles or sites that talk about this idea one way or the other. Does anyone know of any such article, or has anyone spoken to a professional about this topic?

Thanks, Delania

Oh gosh. I'm sorry your topic turned into another NET calorie argument. I know exactly what you're asking though. No, I haven't seen any sources from a professional confirming that eating exercise calories is right. Neither have I seen any saying the idea of 1200 NET calories is wrong. In fact, I had never even heard of eating back exercise calories until I joined MFP. I do have to say that is absolutely makes sense though, despite the lack of... God help me, I can't think of the word right now. (Hopefully you know what I'm trying to say. :sick: ) If it works though, why would you need a professional to authenticate or justify the concept anyways? The proof is all around you on MFP. I don't personally eat back my calories (except for this past week, and let me tell you... I love the extra food, but the scale doesn't), but I know a ton of MFP members who have had the same success as me by implementing the idea of NET calories.

Goal_Seeker_1988

I hope im not going to get shot down for saying this but wouldnt it be better to take it a day at a time and see how your body reacts to the amount of calories your eating say eat more if you lose too fast or eat less if your not losing any. Is all the mathematics totally necessary. *Runs Away Quickly*

Completly agree! Seriously, everybodies bodys work differently in the sense of how they burn calories. I am always all over the place with my caloric intake but bottom line is that I eat when I am hungry and eat often and I try and not allow myself to go to bed hungry. Yes, certain foods like carbs and surgary foods will leave you feelin hungry but bottom line is how the body uses them is up to each persons body.

So play around with the calories, eventually you will figure out what works best for you. If it's better that you only eat half of your calories burned back then do that. I hope I don't get mocked for given my advice.

Rodneymc4

OK trying to make sense of this all, I hope you don't mind helping me out. My BMR is 1539.15 so I x that by 1.55 (spinning instructor, I teach usually 5 classes a week, some weight training usually 1 or 2/week) and I come out with 2385.6825. These are the calories I need to maintain my weight, if I want to lose I just cut down from that number??? Am I understanding this right?

_____________________________

YES, a 500 calorie deficit a day should take away 1 pound a week so 2385 - 500 = 1885 calories a day is the number for 1lb a week.

Rodneymc4

I know that this topic has been beaten to death, but here is my dilemma: I have a degree in nutrition and the "rules" state that a woman needs 1200 calories of food per day, period. There is no mention of eating back exercise calories. I've searched the web and cannot find any professional articles or sites that talk about this idea one way or the other. Does anyone know of any such article, or has anyone spoken to a professional about this topic?

Thanks, Delania

Oh gosh. I'm sorry your topic turned into another NET calorie argument. I know exactly what you're asking though. No, I haven't seen any sources from a professional confirming that eating exercise calories is right. Neither have I seen any saying the idea of 1200 NET calories is wrong. In fact, I had never even heard of eating back exercise calories until I joined MFP. I do have to say that is absolutely makes sense though, despite the lack of... God help me, I can't think of the word right now. (Hopefully you know what I'm trying to say. :sick: ) If it works though, why would you need a professional to authenticate or justify the concept anyways? The proof is all around you on MFP. I don't personally eat back my calories (except for this past week, and let me tell you... I love the extra food, but the scale doesn't), but I know a ton of MFP members who have had the same success as me by implementing the idea of NET calories.

---

I have just started eating back my exercise calories today. I pray my scale appreciates this new found wisdom...to be continued next week when and IF I lose my targeted weight.

However, I did experience the loss of muscle while retaining the fat by not eating back my exercise calories, which is an absolute no / no for me.

pandafoo

I have talked with both my personal trainer who's a metabolism specialist and with my dietician about this, and they both stated the importance of eating back exercise calories. they don't know about the MFP website at all, so they probably learned about it through their training and education. if you'd like, i can ask them this week what their sources of info were.

i am similar to you in that i do like to know the scientific evidence that backs up a claim. while there may not be articles specifically about eating back exercise calories (i think this concept was developed because of the way mfp was set up), there are definitely lots of articles about the importance of getting enough calories and what appropriate calorie levels would be for men and women, importance of refueling after workouts, etc. even the american council of exercise recommends no more than a 1000 calorie deficit a day. altogether, all that info points to getting enough fuel for the body, and one way to do that is to eat back exercise calories.

so for me, even if there's not a wealth of scientific literature about this very topic, i'll keep on eating back exercise calories. i've been losing weight at a rate of 1.5 lbs a week, and have regained the muscle that i'd lost - and the loss occurred partly because i hadn't eaten enough calories. i'll let experience and logic serve as my guide.

significance

Something that a lot of people miss in these arguments is that setting a lower limit of 1200 net calories sets a very low calorie deficit for smaller people. To lose 1 lb per week, we need a deficit of 500 calories. I need 1500 net calories per day to maintain my current weight, so to lose 1 lb per week, I'd need to net 1000 calories per day. To eat only 1000 calories per day would be unhealthy and make it hard to get the nutrients I need, but it seems to me that if I eat 1600 calories and exercise enough to burn off 600 calories per day, I am able to have a healthy diet and at the same time maintain enough of a calorie deficit for that moderate, 1 lb/week weight loss.

annpat28

bump

susioryan

Bump

KellyBurton1

saving for later

takemeaway10

SUPER BUMP

Here's my theory and math on eating calories back. We all agree that 1200 is the minimum for adults to function and that one should not create a calorie deficit larger than 1,000 (or, don't try to lose more than 2 lbs a week).

Summary: You should eat back your calories unless it causes a net calorie consumption lower than 1,200 kcal or a calorie deficit larger than 1,000 kcal.

I'm on a 1500 calorie diet. This is my BMR plus my lifestyle, minus the automatic deficit that MFP creates. If I burn 200 calories, my net is 1300 calories and my deficit is 700 calories; ALL GOOD. If I burn 400 calories, my deficit (900 kcal) is fine, but my net consumed is lower than 1,200. This can be corrected by eating 100 calories. Then, you'd have a 800 kcal deficit and 1200 net consumed. ALL GOOD.

Next scenario: An individual who is slightly more active than I is give 1800 calories a day by MFP with the included 500 calorie deficit. If he burns 400, his net is 1400 and his deficit is 900; OK. If he ups his workout to 600, his deficit will be too high. He could either eat the calories back OR not burn as many calories. If his main goal is to lose weight, he shouldn't bother with the extra 100 calories; just relax. If his goal is fitness, he should eat back the calories. He will render his efforts useless because, while he's working to build muscle, the deficit causes the body to grab some energy from the muscle.

'Nother example: An individual that is given 1200 calories a day(Automatic 500 kcal deficit). Skip the math; this individual should be eating all their exercise calories back to avoid losing muscle mass, ESPECIALLY if they burn more than 500 kcal through exercise.

Why the "1lb-a-weeker" has more calories to play around: Let's go back to me. If I consume 1500 (MFP sggested, 500 calorie deficit) and burn 200 calories (which means I CAN eat up to 1700 kcal), if I decide not to eat back my excersise calories, my net (1300 kcal) and my deficit (700 kcal) are safe. I my requirement was the same but I'm looking to lose 2lbs a week, then I need to eat back all my exercise calories; otherwise, I'll risk having a deficit too high.

Why I don't think you'll find any literature suggesting "eating calories back": MFP is the only website of which I know that guesses your daily calorie requirement based on daily activity, THEN allows you to burn extra calories via exercise. Without this, you would simply include your exercise in your daily activity, have your 500-1,000 calorie deficit, and that would be it.

If we assume the basics mentioned above (nothing larger than a 1,000 calorie deficit and net calorie consumption lower than 1,200), then we should just be fine.

Eve1972

I know that this topic has been beaten to death, but here is my dilemma: I have a degree in nutrition and the "rules" state that a woman needs 1200 calories of food per day, period. There is no mention of eating back exercise calories. I've searched the web and cannot find any professional articles or sites that talk about this idea one way or the other. Does anyone know of any such article, or has anyone spoken to a professional about this topic?

Thanks, Delania

Well, I'm not an expert by any means but I have had a love affair with health and fitness for many years now. I have not come across this idea before until posting here.

From what I know you don't really need to eat back your exercise calories. I think people confuse eating a low calorie diet which is nutritionally deficient and therefore harmful and eating a well balanced diet but then adding cardio to ensure a negative calorie balance which can be very effective.

The 1,200 calorie guideline is a good one as generally the individual has a margin of error to ensure they are getting sufficient nutrients from their food intake. However, I would like to point that medically supervised VLCD's are nutritionally complete at 800 calories.

I guess some people presume that you somehow exercise out the nutrients you have consumed but that is generally not correct as they are absorbed by the body save for that which you lose through transpiration (ie sweating.)

Of course there are many good reasons for eating much more than 1,200 calories if you are approaching normal weight. However, there is no harm in my view of not eating back your calories say if you are on 1,700 calories yet burn 700 calories through exercise leaving a 1000 calorie balance.

Thank you! That is exactly what I believe also. There is a difference between eating 1500 calories and burning 500, then simply eating 1000 calories.

alifer

Bump

KazNoms

Wait what! Major bump! Think a change is order for my organs sake x(

melaniecheeks

I understand the maths. But I don't think bodies behave like that. You don't put on weight overnight becaue you ate more than 2000 cals one day, say, nor do you lose overnight if you've only eaten 800 calories one day (these are just hypothetical examples). MFP is full of people who've eaten right and exercised well for weeks at a time, with no result. It may be straighforward maths, but its not so straightforward biology.

I liked the quote above that eating 1500 and burning 500 isn't the same as only consuming 1000.

pammyedmunds

BUMP for later reading!

SHBoss1673

I know that this topic has been beaten to death, but here is my dilemma: I have a degree in nutrition and the "rules" state that a woman needs 1200 calories of food per day, period. There is no mention of eating back exercise calories. I've searched the web and cannot find any professional articles or sites that talk about this idea one way or the other. Does anyone know of any such article, or has anyone spoken to a professional about this topic?

Thanks, Delania

check again, there are no rules for minimum calories. That guideline you are talking about is the average minimum women need in order to maintain long term health, and it is in regards to micro nutrients, not macro nutrients. In other words, it's just something noted by the World Health Organization in the 80's after doing an observational study on thousands of woman world wide. They determined that women who eat less than 1200 calories eventually suffer from vitamin and/or mineral deficiencies.

The reason why you won't see eating exercise calories back in any nutrition text is because it is a concept made popular by this website rather recently. It's just a different way to do it, it's neither better or worse. This is why when I tell people to eat back exercise calories, and they mention that their nutritionist or trainer doesn't agree, I tell them to explain first that MFP gives you a deficit based on maintenance calories (AMR) and exercise calories are only added back to retain that deficit level.

It's no different than giving someone a static calorie amount (after doing the individual research) and having exercise expand that deficit, it's just a different way to reach that same deficit goal.

The problem arises when people don't understand this concept and decide to create a deficit that is right on the edge of the maximum amount they can create (or over in many cases) and then don't eat their exercise calories, which expands the deficit far beyond what their body can handle in a healthy manner.

myofibril

The reason why you won't see eating exercise calories back in any nutrition text is because it is a concept made popular by this website rather recently. It's just a different way to do it, it's neither better or worse. This is why when I tell people to eat back exercise calories, and they mention that their nutritionist or trainer doesn't agree, I tell them to explain first that MFP gives you a deficit based on maintenance calories (AMR) and exercise calories are only added back to retain that deficit level.

I would echo this. At the time of writing my original post (sometime ago it seems!) I wasn't aware of how MFP projects calorie deficit levels. If I was using the MFP calculator I would eat back exercise calories as they have not been included within the deficit calculation as I now understand.

It would be interesting to know what activity level multipliers are applied to BMR (I'm assuming that's how it has been set up) though because it isn't something I had ever come across before. However, I note that Livestrong seems to use the same set up as here too.

lornawalker

bump

meggers123

What I've always heard is that it varies. Someone who has significant weight to lose, can handle not eating back their work-out calories, whereas someone closer to their goal (10-20 lbs) need to be more careful about not dropping below 1100-1200 net.

JennLifts

To the OP: It's not that you should eat them back. When you learned your information in school, you learned it as though someone is losing weight regularly. You're information is ok. BUT we're not in the real world losing weight where there's no deficit built in on a fancy website. So when you come on here, and it creates on (and not my exercise) you have to eat the cals you worked off, so that you stay at the 1200, or what ever deficit you had. Other wise you've made the deficit much larger.