Exercise calories controversy ???

erickirb

i was thinking exactly the same as you, if we burn calories why do we then need to eat more, it makes no sense.

see my posts above

carolinegeorgia

I have never eaten my exercise calories and lost weight every week, I know if I need to I can but it doesn't work for me to eat them, think you have to do what's best for you ;-)

dawnemjh

I Agree with eric!! If you only eat 1200 calories and burn 300 exercising, your total daily calorie intake would only be 900, which is not enought calories. Its not healthy to go below 1200 calories per day. that being said however, I dont always eat back all my calories because I am not 100% convinced that the estimated calorie burn for the excercises that I do are accurate, and I air on the side of being under rather than over.

erickirb

I have never eaten my exercise calories and lost weight every week, I know if I need to I can but it doesn't work for me to eat them, think you have to do what's best for you ;-)

Losing muscle is not good for anyone. If you goal is set for 0.5 lb/week lose then it would be okay not to eat them as you caloric deficit would only be 250 cals, but for those that are set at 1.5 to 2 lbs/week should eat most of them to avoid burning muscle as fuel, instead of fat, which is really what you want to lose.

stevie_c

I thought the point was you were set a daily calorie intake level dependent on your lifestyle, height, weight etc and that this target is 500 calories short of what you "require" per day. As a result the issue of getting more calories to eat for exercise is that when you excersize you burn calories and hence are increasing the deficit (more than 500 short) therfore you can afford to eat more? Yes if you don't eat right up to your limit and have say a 700 calorie deficit you may lose more weight but there is the risk you lose the weight too fast and hense might put it on again or slow your metabolism...? I am no expert that was just my interpretation of the info!

Cristy_AZ

I found this online,
There are approximately 3500 calories in a pound of stored body fat. So, if you create a 3500-calorie deficit through diet, exercise or a combination of both, you will lose one pound of body weight. (On average 75% of this is fat, 25% lean tissue) If you create a 7000 calorie deficit you will lose two pounds and so on. The calorie deficit can be achieved either by calorie-restriction alone, or by a combination of fewer calories in (diet) and more calories out (exercise). This combination of diet and exercise is best for lasting weight loss. Indeed, sustained weight loss is difficult or impossible without increased regular exercise. If you want to lose fat, a useful guideline for lowering your calorie intake is to reduce your calories by at least 500, but not more than 1000 below your maintenance level


Seems like its just doing the math, I mean if you workout hard and burn over say 600 calories and are set at 1200 calorie intake could you really not pass out eating 600 net calories?? Not me, I get too hungry and I don't want to loose muscle, just fat, I eat back at least 1/2 of my workout calories. But what seemed more important was to eat more protein, to eat early and to eat every few hours. Everyone is different, I think you have to do what works right for you, just do the math and make sure you are at a safe and effective calorie deficit.

erickirb

I thought the point was you were set a daily calorie intake level dependent on your lifestyle, height, weight etc and that this target is 500 calories short of what you "require" per day. As a result the issue of getting more calories to eat for exercise is that when you excersize you burn calories and hence are increasing the deficit (more than 500 short) therfore you can afford to eat more? Yes if you don't eat right up to your limit and have say a 700 calorie deficit you may lose more weight but there is the risk you lose the weight too fast and hense might put it on again or slow your metabolism...? I am no expert that was just my interpretation of the info!

close, in numbers MFP puts you in a deficit of 250-1000 depending on your goal, but your theory is 100% correct.

NotAllWhoWanderAreLost

One other consideration that i havent seen mentioned thus far in this thread is how many calories (without exercise) your initial goal was.... If your initial goal was 1600 calories, you have much more wiggle-room to eat or not eat back exercise calories without falling below the 1200 NET minimum. The closer your initial goal is to 1200, the more important it is to eat back those exercise calories because you dont want to end under 1200 NET (routinely) and slip into a famine response which is your body preserving its fat stores, breaking down/burning muscle and lowering your metabolism rate.

Yes, you will continue to lose weight when your body is in famine response, but you will be losing about 50% of it in muscle and 50% in fat. Not what you're aiming for, i bet! On top of that, since metabolism lowers, when/if you fall off the wagon weight regain occurs much more quickly. Exercise preserves and builds muscle, raises metabolism, improves mood and energy levels and makes for a much healthier body in the long-run. Its incredibly beneficial to add regular exercise into your life!

Some people will swear by not eating back their calories and that may work in the short-term but an engine needs fuel to run. If you are only adding enough fuel for regular daily activities, how long do you expect to be able to have the energy to be athletic without giving your body a bit of extra fuel?

Again, if you have a base goal of 1600 cals and you burn 300 through exercise, this may never become a major concern for you (as your NET calories always end up over 1200 anyways) but if your base goal is lower and/or you have higher burns, you really DO need to consider what are your objectives? Just to lose weight regardless of its fat/muslce composition? If you want to lose weight over the long-term AND have a healthy and strong body, you need to fuel your body like an athlete and that means taking post-workout refueling into consideration.

I dont ALWAYS eat ALL of my exercise calories back, but when i end up with a NET under 1200 several times a week for a few weeks in a row, i notice a lack of energy which keeps me from optimal performance and a plateau of my weight. Speaking personally, i dont do all this exercise to burn off my muscle for energy! I want the fat gone, not the muscle! :drinker:

carolinegeorgia

http://doubleyourgains.com/burn-fat-not-muscle

erniemj

I have never eaten my exercise calories and lost weight every week, I know if I need to I can but it doesn't work for me to eat them, think you have to do what's best for you ;-)

Losing muscle is not good for anyone. If you goal is set for 0.5 lb/week lose then it would be okay not to eat them as you caloric deficit would only be 250 cals, but for those that are set at 1.5 to 2 lbs/week should eat most of them to avoid burning muscle as fuel, instead of fat, which is really what you want to lose.

Question (by the way I completely agree with you) does this theorem apply if you are just starting out on your weight loss journey? Does it matter as much when your metabolism is already super slow? I guess the question is, are you burning more fat or muscle or mere water weight at the beginning of your journey vs. later on? Is it okay not to eat all of your exercise calories until you have fully realized how to eat properly, get the right nutrition, and exercise properly? Thank you for any input you have

FearAnLoathing

I have never eaten my exercise calories and lost weight every week, I know if I need to I can but it doesn't work for me to eat them, think you have to do what's best for you ;-)

Losing muscle is not good for anyone. If you goal is set for 0.5 lb/week lose then it would be okay not to eat them as you caloric deficit would only be 250 cals, but for those that are set at 1.5 to 2 lbs/week should eat most of them to avoid burning muscle as fuel, instead of fat, which is really what you want to lose.

I lost 40 pounds last year not eating my calories back and on a plan JUST like this one only a diffrent site.I didnt lose muscle,my trainer at the time and the doctor I was seeing said I was fine.In september when I moved and things got crazy for a little while I stoped working out for3 or 4 months and never gained a pound back. Just saying whats good for some isnt for everyone.I think everyone needs to find out what works for them,and not what other people say they should be doing.

erniemj

to clarify, I agree with all those who recommend that you eat your exercise calories

erickirb

I have never eaten my exercise calories and lost weight every week, I know if I need to I can but it doesn't work for me to eat them, think you have to do what's best for you ;-)

Losing muscle is not good for anyone. If you goal is set for 0.5 lb/week lose then it would be okay not to eat them as you caloric deficit would only be 250 cals, but for those that are set at 1.5 to 2 lbs/week should eat most of them to avoid burning muscle as fuel, instead of fat, which is really what you want to lose.

Question (by the way I completely agree with you) does this theorem apply if you are just starting out on your weight loss journey? Does it matter as much when your metabolism is already super slow? I guess the question is, are you burning more fat or muscle or mere water weight at the beginning of your journey vs. later on? Is it okay not to eat all of your exercise calories until you have fully realized how to eat properly, get the right nutrition, and exercise properly? Thank you for any input you have

If you have a lot to lose you don't have to eat all your exercise calories, but the more weight you lose the smaller your caloric deficit should be to ensure as much muscle retention as possible.

jenniferstanton

I read all the posts and what erickirb said makes the most sense. MFP already starts you at a deficeit depending on how much you want to lose each week. I would eat most of the exercise calories. I don't know if I would eat all because I still havn't figured out what an accurate carlorie count is for the exercise I do (since there are so many variables). My feeling after years of dieting is that the faster you lose it the harder it is to keep it off. Especially if you don't have a lot to lose. Also, it's taken me many years and many diets to realize it's not about starving yourself but being healthy and losing a reasonable amount each week. At least with my body it never has worked to take it off fast. The way I'm doing it now, slow and healthy is what is working for me.

Good luck!

cassieschroedercurry

I think it depends how many calories you are allowed. I eat my exercise calories because I can only have 1200 calories a day and I usually burn around 600-700 a day. I have heard that your metabolism can slow down if you go under 1200 calories per day.

NotAllWhoWanderAreLost

I think it depends how many calories you are allowed. I eat my exercise calories because I can only have 1200 calories a day and I usually burn around 600-700 a day. I have heard that your metabolism can slow down if you go under 1200 calories per day.

:drinker: YES! :drinker:

stormieweather

Under settings>> diet profile - YOU selected what your goals are. To lose 1 pound a week (recommended), 2 pounds a week, 1/2 pound a week, etc. MFP sets your goals based on your TDEE (gender/age/weight/height/activity level) less the necessary deficit to reach that goal.

Now if you go to goals, you will see what MFP estimates your TDEE - "calories burned from normal daily activity" to be. Mine is 1730. To lose 1 pound a week, MFP would set my goal at 1230 (1730-500). Now, if I go work out and burn 300 calories but do NOT eat them back, I am only giving my body 930 calories, when I actually NEED 1730+300=2030. I am depriving myself nutritionally. And I'll probably feel like crap as well.

MFP works by setting your calorie goals based on your weight loss goals. It adds back the exercise so you will feel good, be able to stick to the plan and so that you lose maximum fat with minimum muscle loss. Isn't that what we all want?

That said, most people who do not lose when they eat their exercise calories do so because either a) they underestimate how much they're eating or b) they overestimate the calories they are burning during exercise. In my case, it has been a combination of the two. I highly recommend measuring and weighing everything as well as only eating part of your exercise calories if you do not have a HRM (to leave room for estimation errors).

jacqedup

Your body is going to go into starvation mode if you dont eat enough, and will begin to store fat. The more you exert yourself the more fuel you are going to need. Make your calories count by eating the right foods, stay active and you will see your weight reduce.
6 lbs down, 54 to go!!!

FearAnLoathing

I think I'll just do whats already been working just fine for me.

cleo77

it depends how are hard you are working out. If you are doing an low to medium impact workout then you might want to be careful. However, if you are working out really hard, specially weight training, then you need to eat more calories to fuel your body to increase metabolism. What I am learning is if I continue to eat good quality foods from the earth, then my body will respond positively, regardless of my calorie intake. I am losing weight, and many times I eat my workout calories. I think its because I am eating fruits and vegetables, and limiting process foods.

KWSR16

I do not eat my calories back either. But the way I figure it out is, most likely I am not 100% on all my measurements on the food I eat (like size/portions) so I figure that I am probably eating more calories anyways. Plus there are some days where I eat a little over. And MFP doesnt have home made meals that we make at home (where Im not completely sure what is in it) or the small little restaurants that we go to that never seem to have a nutrition menu. Then I just guess and hope I'm not too far off. I think in the end if you are just a little lenient on yourself with sizes and portions, you work out, and you make sure that you arent starving when you go to bed, you will be just fine. I'm not very good at all those equations either so I just make sure that what I'm doing feels good for my body.

I hope you found your answer somewhere among all of the reply's you recieved! And good luck with your weight loss!

becalee26

Everyone is different! I've been working out hard for the last 3 weeks and seeing no results. I am not sure if it's because of muscle or calories. I am going to play around with my excersice cals and see what works. There is no right or wrong answer.

jennifir

I dont eat mine and my trainer said I was fine,my doctor said im fine.Every one I talked to said im fine except people on here.I'll just stick to doing things the way I do them.It works for me.

That's how I feel about it. I eat most of my alloted calories and don't eat the exercise calories and I'm not hungry. Otherwise, i feel like I'm defeating my purpose.

reeveskl28

i dont think you HAVE to eat them back i think you CAN eat them but you should eat ALL of them i usually dont

NotAllWhoWanderAreLost

I keep think about these exercise calories and how you are suppose to eat them. I find it very controversial because I see some people that swear by it yet I see many people that constantly lose weight from not eating them. I know many people that have lost weight by eating right and walking/exercising while not having a clue about eating calories back. Trust me, I would want nothing more than to be able to eat more calories but everyone I ask such as professionals have never heard of this. SO now, I am more confused than ever. So far I have read the articles on MFP but other than that, what are other resources non-MFP that can back up this information?

That is because professionals don't use the math the way MFP does. MFP tells you you need 1300 calories to lose 2 lbs/week (which is a 1000 cal/day deficit) To keep your deficit at 2 lb goal (1000) you must eat the exercise calories or your deficit will be greater than a 1000 calories. MFP sets you up to lose without exercise.

A professional may tell you to eat 1600 and exercise 30 min/day So the 1600 calories would give you a deficit on the day of 700, using the above numbers, the half hour of exercise they tell you to do burned say 300 calories, now your deficit is 1000 (700+300) whereas MFP says to eat 1300 and you burn 300 now you get to eat 1600 (1300+300). This gets you to the same place as very few professionals will tell you to eat as little as MFP does.

So eating the recommended by professional of 1600 would yield the same results MFP does by telling you to eat 1300. As the professional already would have added an amount for exercise in the 1600 whereas MFP adds the cals to get you to 1600ish, after you actually do the exercise. The professional assumes you will do the recommended exercise whereas MFP will allow you to lose the same amount of weight whether you exercise or not.

bump

NotAllWhoWanderAreLost

Heres my take on it:
Before I had massive caloric defects -- the pounds melted away.
I reached my goal weight loss of 65 pounds but felt weak. This was due to the muscle I burned away.

I switched over to a low caloric deficit and added weight and actually ate more
The pounds returned at first
Over time I returned to the same goal weight with a lower bf / higher muscle ratio.
I feel great and I am eating more

So.. A lower deficit will yield better returns but not as quickly bc you will not lose as much muscle. Muscle is a good thing bc it increases your bmr!!

Agreed, so if you don't want to lose muscle, eat your exercise cals, or at least most of them

bump

NotAllWhoWanderAreLost

One other consideration that i havent seen mentioned thus far in this thread is how many calories (without exercise) your initial goal was.... If your initial goal was 1600 calories, you have much more wiggle-room to eat or not eat back exercise calories without falling below the 1200 NET minimum. The closer your initial goal is to 1200, the more important it is to eat back those exercise calories because you dont want to end under 1200 NET (routinely) and slip into a famine response which is your body preserving its fat stores, breaking down/burning muscle and lowering your metabolism rate.

Yes, you will continue to lose weight when your body is in famine response, but you will be losing about 50% of it in muscle and 50% in fat. Not what you're aiming for, i bet! On top of that, since metabolism lowers, when/if you fall off the wagon weight regain occurs much more quickly. Exercise preserves and builds muscle, raises metabolism, improves mood and energy levels and makes for a much healthier body in the long-run. Its incredibly beneficial to add regular exercise into your life!

Some people will swear by not eating back their calories and that may work in the short-term but an engine needs fuel to run. If you are only adding enough fuel for regular daily activities, how long do you expect to be able to have the energy to be athletic without giving your body a bit of extra fuel?

Again, if you have a base goal of 1600 cals and you burn 300 through exercise, this may never become a major concern for you (as your NET calories always end up over 1200 anyways) but if your base goal is lower and/or you have higher burns, you really DO need to consider what are your objectives? Just to lose weight regardless of its fat/muslce composition? If you want to lose weight over the long-term AND have a healthy and strong body, you need to fuel your body like an athlete and that means taking post-workout refueling into consideration.

I dont ALWAYS eat ALL of my exercise calories back, but when i end up with a NET under 1200 several times a week for a few weeks in a row, i notice a lack of energy which keeps me from optimal performance and a plateau of my weight. Speaking personally, i dont do all this exercise to burn off my muscle for energy! I want the fat gone, not the muscle! :drinker:

bump

NotAllWhoWanderAreLost

Under settings>> diet profile - YOU selected what your goals are. To lose 1 pound a week (recommended), 2 pounds a week, 1/2 pound a week, etc. MFP sets your goals based on your TDEE (gender/age/weight/height/activity level) less the necessary deficit to reach that goal.

Now if you go to goals, you will see what MFP estimates your TDEE - "calories burned from normal daily activity" to be. Mine is 1730. To lose 1 pound a week, MFP would set my goal at 1230 (1730-500). Now, if I go work out and burn 300 calories but do NOT eat them back, I am only giving my body 930 calories, when I actually NEED 1730+300=2030. I am depriving myself nutritionally. And I'll probably feel like crap as well.

MFP works by setting your calorie goals based on your weight loss goals. It adds back the exercise so you will feel good, be able to stick to the plan and so that you lose maximum fat with minimum muscle loss. Isn't that what we all want?

That said, most people who do not lose when they eat their exercise calories do so because either a) they underestimate how much they're eating or b) they overestimate the calories they are burning during exercise. In my case, it has been a combination of the two. I highly recommend measuring and weighing everything as well as only eating part of your exercise calories if you do not have a HRM (to leave room for estimation errors).

bump!

Suzy_B

I try to eat at least half of them, it's a happy medium.

bayles1

From my point of view,mfp,set the targets and pass on the guidance that enables you to lose the weight at the rate that you have set personally.It is clear that this is done so with a long term view and that again I/you are aware of that at the time of signing up.
It is done so with the safety of the individual paramount and with the objective of obtaining and ultimately sustaining the said weight achieved.
Now it is quite understandable that when exercise calories or at least a good percentage are not consumed the weight loss will be greater initially and of course seen as a greater success,this will provoke a reluctance to change and actually eat the calories back and maybe seen as a retrospective step.The thing that I remember and keep reminding myself is that no matter how tempting this may get,I have set my goals personally and refuse to get carried away with short term losses which will ultimately in most cases come back to haunt me because they are purely not safe or sustainable.So yes I eat my calories back...lol.