An objective look at eating "exercise calories"

stroutman81

Just a comment to the non-expert people reading this...BMR is not maintenance. Maintenance is your daily acitivity + BMR . So the deficit Steve is talking about should come from your maintenance, not your BMR.

To find out what MFP is calculating your maintenance to be, go to Home > Goals > and on the right side you will see Calories Burned from Normal Daily Activity. That is MFP's calculated maintenance based on your BMR, activity level, gender, and age. This page also shows what your daily deficit is based on the goals you entered to MFP. The idea here (on this site) is to keep that deficit steady, thus the program adds back the exercise burned calories..

Thanks for reiterating that point. It's an important one. And as I mentioned on the previous page, I calculate maintenance as follows:

Total calorie needs = BMR + TEF + SPA + TEA

BMR = basal metabolic rate

TEF = thermic effect of food

SPA = spontaneous physical activity

TEA = thermic effect of activity

MaryDreamer

Thanks so much!

MaryDreamer

Just a comment to the non-expert people reading this...BMR is not maintenance. Maintenance is your daily acitivity + BMR . So the deficit Steve is talking about should come from your maintenance, not your BMR.

To find out what MFP is calculating your maintenance to be, go to Home > Goals > and on the right side you will see Calories Burned from Normal Daily Activity. That is MFP's calculated maintenance based on your BMR, activity level, gender, and age. This page also shows what your daily deficit is based on the goals you entered to MFP. The idea here (on this site) is to keep that deficit steady, thus the program adds back the exercise burned calories..

Thank you Stormie!

MaryDreamer

Thank you so much Stormie!

petey49

Hi Stroutman81: I just want to make sure I understand and get this right.

According to MFP my BMR + Normal daily activity (NDA) = 1500 cals. 25% of this is 375 cals, the deficit I am looking for. So if I did nothing exercise-wise I should only eat 1125 cals to meet my deficit.

So if I set my daily calorie goal at 1125 then burn 400 calories in exercise I am at 725 calories for my BMR + NDA, way way to low.

Hence if set my daily calorie goal at 1125 calories, burn 400 calories then eat back 400 calories I am back to 1125 calories.

Hence I still meet my deficit and continue to loose weight.

Did I get this right? The next question is 1125 calories too little? I have read that you should not go below 1200 calories.

ladyhawk00

Exactly. I do it out of habit, because it takes me a mere 5 seconds, and I'm a neurotic number cruncher, but 30-60 calories here and there when you are talking about 1800 over the course of a day, or burning 1000+ running 10 miles, makes very little difference. It just won't break the bank. No one measures every single gram of food they put into their mouth and any food that is even slightly processed will have only an approximate nutritional value, as is. So splitting hairs about a few calories here or there is really futile in the grand old scheme of things. Added stress with little to no pay off!

And you bring up an excellent point about added stress. I'm sure this will come across as overly blunt but it seems many dieters today go bat crap crazy about this stuff. They only see things in binary terms - particular foods are either healthy or horrible, their behavior is either good or bad, they're either successful or they failed, etc, etc. And all this sort of reasoning and perspective does is ramp up anxiety like crazy.

People are flipping out over 10 calories. And ya know what? I think it hurts them.

The stress response they're generating by being as anal retentive and psychotic as they are bites them in the *kitten*. Which is why I always recommend people read the book written by Robert Sapolsky called "Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers." He's a great author and a genius when it comes to the stress response of the body. Humans unfortunately can work themselves up into such a psychological mess about the future by thinking about catastrophic thoughts and building psychological hurdles that are simply impossible to clear and thus, our biology that's really in place to keep us alive winds up going in overdrive in chronic terms.

Like I've said in numerous places on this forum now - our ability to manage stress is finite. In our body's mind, stress is stress have it be psychological, physical, real, imagined, etc. And when you've relatively small people eating like birds, doing copious amounts of exercise, stressing about work and family which is typical in this culture, and then topping it off with psychotic analysis and concern over diet and exercise - well - things tend to get messed up.

It's no wonder people are constantly stalling out, really. Granted, I believe more often than not it's a miscalculation on energy intake and expenditure, but still, this is very real.

Fat loss, sex drive, immune function, you name it and chronic stress will affect it, usually negatively.

People just need to relax, set realistic expectations, avoid perfectionism, and be patient.

Great explanation on your OP, and this is a GREAT added point. Thanks for taking the time.

shalynna89

Thank You!! I'm new to the site and wasn't sure what to do. This explains it so well. Thank you again!!

juliana1977

Excelent! Very well explainned, this should be our welcome page to MFP.
I do have a question: what is ur advice for people who workout late at night?
I usually dont get to workout untill 8:30/9pm, after putting my kids on bed. Should I plan ahead of the time and eat all my calories and after workout only have a protein shake?

reneelee

Stroutman, you are my hero!

Crystals422

Thanks for the post. I will make sure I eat back the exercise calories or even try to to do such intese workouts due to me not being able to eat them back.

stroutman81

Hi Stroutman81: I just want to make sure I understand and get this right.

According to MFP my BMR + Normal daily activity (NDA) = 1500 cals. 25% of this is 375 cals, the deficit I am looking for. So if I did nothing exercise-wise I should only eat 1125 cals to meet my deficit.

So if I set my daily calorie goal at 1125 then burn 400 calories in exercise I am at 725 calories for my BMR + NDA, way way to low.

Hence if set my daily calorie goal at 1125 calories, burn 400 calories then eat back 400 calories I am back to 1125 calories.

Hence I still meet my deficit and continue to loose weight.

Did I get this right? The next question is 1125 calories too little? I have read that you should not go below 1200 calories.

You have it right.

And there is no set calorie limit that is universally too low. I've worked with smaller women that had to hover around 1000. Calorie requirements are predicated on your genetics, your size, your lifestyle, your body composition, etc.

But maybe 1125 is in fact too low for you. What are your stats?

stroutman81

Excelent! Very well explainned, this should be our welcome page to MFP.
I do have a question: what is ur advice for people who workout late at night?
I usually dont get to workout untill 8:30/9pm, after putting my kids on bed. Should I plan ahead of the time and eat all my calories and after workout only have a protein shake?

Absolutely not. Of course it depends on how you're working about somewhat, but post-training is the best time to eat. It's when our tissues are most sensitive to positively "partitioning" the calories favorably - meaning enhanced body composition. Protein consumption post training tends to enhance protein synthesis and carb intake post training tends to squash protein breakdown.

Eat.

There's nothing wrong with eating at night as long as it's within your calorie and nutrient targets and ESPECIALLY if it's post training.

stroutman81

Thanks everyone else for the kind words and for reading what I have to say.

2bfitforever

Great information. Thank you!

shaunshaikh

The key to eating back your exercise calories to me seems like the key to everything in diet and weight loss -- moderation. If you exist in some extreme during your weight loss journey, it's probably not going to be a lasting thing even if it's successful. If you're eating 800 calories a day or working out 2 hours a day or having a 2,000 calorie deficit -- it's not sustainable. And you know what they say -- when you live in one extreme it's easy to snap back to the other extreme. When I was a wrestler in high school, everybody was very weight conscious and lived in one extreme of exercise in diet. When wrestling was over, most people went to the other extreme and gained a lot of weight. Keep a moderate calorie deficit every single day and you will get leaner over time and reach your goals of looking better and feeling better. The results may not always be seen on the scale, but if you are true to yourself they will be seen by the eye and how you feel.

The OP has made some points about not sweating the small stuff and has tried to simplify a lot of things. While I agree to some extent, I disagree to some extent also. Some people need the accountability of logging every single calorie consumed, because they need to see what they do to themselves when they snack or have 5 full caloried sodas or have a 1,400 calorie pasta at TGIF with 5 buttered breadsticks. Some people need to know that their 30 mintue walk doesn't entitle them to a slice of cheesecake or a second portion of dinner. Some people really have no clue what they are doing to themselves when they eat. The accountability and the counting are the first part to truly understanding your diet and your body. I think once you've done it for a while and you are comfortable understanding everything around you, you can then start to taper back your level of recording, because you'll already understand the habits that you need to be successful with weight loss. You'll understand portion size and good foods vs. bad foods.

stroutman81

The key to eating back your exercise calories to me seems like the key to everything in diet and weight loss -- moderation.

Can you explain how moderation is the key to whether or not your should eat back your exercise calories?

The way I look at it is very simple. You need an energy deficit to lose weight. Moderate energy deficits typically fare better in the long run than extreme energy deficits, which I clearly explained in the OP. So if your exercise throws you into a severe deficit, it's probably a wise idea to eat back some or all of your exercise calories. If it doesn't, and it puts you in that "sweet spot," then there's no point in eating them back.

Is this what you meant and you were simply reiterating my original point?

The OP has made some points about not sweating the small stuff and has tried to simplify a lot of things. While I agree to some extent, I disagree to some extent also. Some people need the accountability of logging every single calorie consumed, because they need to see what they do to themselves when they snack or have 5 full caloried sodas or have a 1,400 calorie pasta at TGIF with 5 buttered breadsticks.

Some people need to know that their 30 mintue walk doesn't entitle them to a slice of cheesecake or a second portion of dinner. Some people really have no clue what they are doing to themselves when they eat. The accountability and the counting are the first part to truly understanding your diet and your body. I think once you've done it for a while and you are comfortable understanding everything around you, you can then start to taper back your level of recording, because you'll already understand the habits that you need to be successful with weight loss. You'll understand portion size and good foods vs. bad foods.

Hmm.... I think you misunderstood me along the line somewhere. At least partially.

I advocate that most people should be logging every morsel of energy that passes their lips. Especially in the beginning to give them that accountability and firsthand knowledge of what energy density means, portion sizes look like, etc.

What I'm not into having my clients do is estimate every unit of energy expended in the gym. It's simply unnecessary in my experience and gets people focusing on the numbers too much rather than consistency, effort, intelligent periodization, etc.

But different strokes for different folks.

Either way, thanks for you 2 cents.

shaunshaikh

On the first part, yes I was just agreeing with you on the moderation thing. Just trying to tie it in with everything else we talk about on this website. Extreme carb reduction diets or workout plans or calorie reductions can all be counter productive in the long run. Sure, there's the chance you'll lose all that weight and then resume a healthy lifestyle when you're at your goal weight -- but there's plenty of evidence out there of people who haven't managed to do that.

As for the second part, nit picking over every calorie you burn during a workout is probably counter productive. I did learn a lot by using a HRM just in the first week of owning one though. I learned that I was burning 800-900 calories playing full court basketball for 45 minutes, not 350 calories like MFP said I was -- mostly because I'm not in the best shape and I am constantly pushing myself into the 190-200 bpm range. This made a big difference in the way I structure my diet on days I play basketball. The other thing I think you can learn is how many calories you can burn while lifting weights. 40 minutes of lifting weights can be such a huge range of caloreis burned depending on the nature of your workout. Ithink for people who are trying to maximize their calorie burn along with building muscle, it's important to understand the difference and MFP is a bad tool for estimating.

stroutman81

Wholeheartedly agree. If you are in fact going to venture down the path of estimating energy expenditure, it's ludicrous to not use a HRM. The calculators on websites are just too variable, vague and assumptive. As you said, a great example is weight training. All weight training is not created equally - powerlifting and olympic lifting one end of the spectrum and glycogen depletion training on the other for example.

Thanks for your clarification.

RMinVA

I so completely agree with you that it is not an absolute!!

petey49

Hi Stroutman81: I just want to make sure I understand and get this right.

According to MFP my BMR + Normal daily activity (NDA) = 1500 cals. 25% of this is 375 cals, the deficit I am looking for. So if I did nothing exercise-wise I should only eat 1125 cals to meet my deficit.

So if I set my daily calorie goal at 1125 then burn 400 calories in exercise I am at 725 calories for my BMR + NDA, way way to low.

Hence if set my daily calorie goal at 1125 calories, burn 400 calories then eat back 400 calories I am back to 1125 calories.

Hence I still meet my deficit and continue to loose weight.

Did I get this right? The next question is 1125 calories too little? I have read that you should not go below 1200 calories.

You have it right.

And there is no set calorie limit that is universally too low. I've worked with smaller women that had to hover around 1000. Calorie requirements are predicated on your genetics, your size, your lifestyle, your body composition, etc.

But maybe 1125 is in fact too low for you. What are your stats?

Hi Stroutman81: Not sure what you mean by my stats, but here is some info. I am female, 51, 5'2", 144 pounds (lost 10 pounds since New Years). Smallish build. I am trying to get down to 135 pounds.

stroutman81

Hi Stroutman81: Not sure what you mean by my stats, but here is some info. I am female, 51, 5'2", 144 pounds (lost 10 pounds since New Years). Smallish build. I am trying to get down to 135 pounds.

I personally would be shooting for 10 calories per pound. But that's assuming your current estimates are accurate. Your rate of weight loss doesn't seem too high but I'd expect some slow downs. Especially seeing as how you're eating lower than I'd recommend.

dalbers

I will admit I did not read every single reply, just the first page.

Great write up.

One thing I find, if I do not "eat back" my exercise calories, my performance suffers.

If you are in this beyond just wanting to lose some weight, but have fitness goals too, performance is important. It matters. You cannot perform, you cannot GO HARD in a huge calorie deficit, you can only do that in a moderate one, and ONLY if you have some stored reserves.

2 years of GPP conditioning sessions for Muay Thai, weight lifting, and running have taught me that if I lose weight to fast and cut back to aggresively on calories means I crash and burn during anything but modest workouts.

So I would encourage those training for more than just fat loss to consider that. For me, I don't just want to be ripped at 190 pounds, but marathon ready.

R4z0r4Mm0

This is such an informative thread, thanks to the OP for sticking around and replying to questions, that's dedication I'm sure your clients praise you on!

I'm posting here so I can always come back to this from my profile!

anubis609

I'm not ridin' your nuts or anything, but this thread deserves its praise. I give respect when it's due, and you have it, good sir. I will simply agree to it all without an interjection.

kdiamond

In real terms, most people establish their deficits partly by cutting calories and partly by increasing activity. But for those of you wondering whether you should be eating back your calories expended exercising, you need to look at your calories in net terms. Where does your deficit stand without eating back your exercise calories?

GREAT post, especially this!!!

kdiamond

I'm not ridin' your nuts or anything, but this thread deserves its praise. I give respect when it's due, and you have it, good sir. I will simply agree to it all without an interjection.

:laugh:

stroutman81

Glad you guys enjoyed and thanks for the kind words.

ladyhawk00

Bump

stroutman81

One thing I find, if I do not "eat back" my exercise calories, my performance suffers.

Yup. Not universally, but you're definitely bringing up a very valid point. Often times people take things to extreme ends of the spectrum. As I often say, they attempt to beat their bodies into submission, and on a stress-response level, this tends to backfire.

Even on this forum, there are hoards of women who are eating next to nothing, running serious mileage each week, and lifting weights. Pair all of this with the stress of life, and you've a perfect recipe for outpacing your body's ability to recover from and manage stress.

Once that happens, all sorts of fun things can happen - plateaus, overall feeling like a big pile of turds, lack of desire to train, nagging dull pains at the joints, etc.

It's not even something that only those interested in performance need to concern themselves with. It's anyone. Our bodies are finely tuned machines and the stress response is one of the fundamental biological models that explain how our bodies maintain homeostasis and survive.

Stress an organism too much though, and things go south. Which is why I like to say you want to coax your body in the right direction. Not force it. Dosage matters when it comes to the application of stress (remember stress is accumulative and comes in many forms - psychological and physical - so things like shortage of calories, exercise, illness, problems at home, tough boss, anxiety about something you're dreaming up happening in the future, etc).

In other words, you have to look at it from the big picture, and ultimately the stress response and adaptive process will be the final arbiter of what you do. Thus diet and its cascading effects on the body (leptin most notably) will be a key factor to consider. Even performance-based athletes, who are well fed and have access to regenerative modalities consolidate their CNS-intensive work into a handful of days.

As a rule, the less you eat, 1) the less nutrients you'll have to effect repair and 2) the more likely your body is to respond to that state by down-regulating its metabolic processes.

To make it simple, below around 10-11 cals/lb (which is more or less BMR for most folks), the body's going to be in a state of chronic stress, shutting down "unnecessary" processes. Muscle growth, as a compensatory adaptive process, is one of the first on this list.

This isn't so much a concern with a more sane deficit, mind you, but you still need to account for it simply for lack of nutrient intake.

Which is why it's all about compromises. Since we're dealing with finite capacities to deal, if we want to do a lot of work for performance based reasons or because we're nuts and addicted to exercise which often seems to be the case, we need to adjust the nutrition accordingly.

If you are in this beyond just wanting to lose some weight, but have fitness goals too, performance is important. It matters. You cannot perform, you cannot GO HARD in a huge calorie deficit, you can only do that in a moderate one, and ONLY if you have some stored reserves.

Well put.

If you're going to do more in the gym, you've to fuel it by eating more. Even if you're maintaining a deficit, make sure you're doing so in relative terms.

MommyRobot

Obese folks, on the contrary, can run much larger deficits than thinner folks for reasons we won't get into here today. But all of these relatively thin folks who are trying to "beat their bodies into submission" by blitzing it full force with calorie deprivation and massive amounts of exercise should probably heed this advice.

I agree with your post for "moderatly fit" people, like you've said. I see a lot of "obese folks" replying here though, do you think you can give us your advice for someone who is obese?

I can totally wrap my head around eating back exercise calories when you're close to a healthy weight, but when you've got 70, 80, 200lbs to lose, it just doesn't make sense. You said, Obese people can run much larger deficits. I think the biggest confusion on this site comes from those who don't understand this point.

For example. I am 5' 3", 216lbs, eating 1200 calories a day and doing a pretty intense workout routine with my trainer 3 days a week, and a mix of strength training/cardio classes on the other 3-4days. On MFP, I get "yelled" at (for lack of a better term) when I don't eat back my exercise calories. Now, I don't starve myself, I'm not hungry, or sluggish, tired, miserable or anything like that... And, if I'm at 1200 and I'm hungry after a workout, you bet your bottom dollar I'm gonna eat/drink something. In my mind there is no reason to be eating back any of my calories though.

I know you said you weren't going into it today, but in your opinion, what should obese people (in general, I know this isn't one size fits all) be doing? Eating back or not eating back? I think it's important for us to hear what the difference is and not assume this post was meant for everyone no matter their weight..