one reason to NOT eat all your exercise calories back.

kittyinaz

http://searchwarp.com/swa308196.htm

The above article states that 10% of the time nutrition labels are wrong. However at my internship today the Director of Food Safety told me they are only required to be 40% correct. When a label and product are sent to be tested the outcome only has to be within a range of 40% of what was put on the label.

That can add up to a huge difference. Also, with natural human error you MAY occasionally misjudge how many calories you are eating. This is just one small reason why you shouldn't necessarily eat ALL your exercise calories back.

But you also need to follow what your body says. If you are starving, don't deprive yourself. I, personally, usually only eat about half my exercise calories back to account for any errors there may have been.

SaraTonin

I say it's more likely that your own estimates of what you ate are less accurate than the numbers on the box. Just do the best you can with what you have, and make sure your net is at least 1200.

SaraTonin

Here is an article from a more reliable source, which says it varies up to 20%, and can vary either above OR below the posted amount.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/health/12calo.html?_r=1

lodro

That's exactly the point. Until I weighed my portions I really thought I was eating 1200 calories. Then I weighed everything and found I was underestimating by about 300 calories. Actually, in amounts that's not so much. A little underestimating here and there really adds up. So now i try to estimate as exactly as possible and I eat under 1200 calories as recorded on MFP: I figure I'll be between 1200 and 1500 actual calories.

BTW, this is also one common reason for people plateauing at an apparent 1200 calories and thinking it's "starvation mode".

baisleac

Easy fix... don't eat packaged foods.

1FITmamaofTWINS

thats why I only eat 200 calories over my net no matter what.... if it wasnt working I would bump it up another 100, and keep going... I dont understand why people make a huge deal out of this crap...

grab a pen and a paper and start to expierment what works for you.. write down the results and keep trying till you get it right. It really isnt that hard people!

stormieweather

I agree that "part" is a good quantity to eat. Overestimating can be a problem, and a lot of people neglect to deduct the calories they would have burned anyway, doing nothing.

lodro

Easy fix... don't eat packaged foods.

Even if you eyeball by "cup" chances are you'll underestimate. This is especially true if you're using volume measures.

LuckyLeprechaun

Easy fix... don't eat packaged foods.

yes, every apple is exactly the same calorie count, as is every banana on earth.

:noway:

shaunshaikh

This has nothing to do with exercise calories and everything to do with mis-estimating your calorie consumption.

baisleac

Easy fix... don't eat packaged foods.

Even if you eyeball by "cup" chances are you'll underestimate. This is especially true if you're using volume measures.

I didn't say don't measure. I said don't eat packaged foods. BIG difference.


And FYI... I eyeball. And I double check myself with scale and measuring cup. 95% of the time, I'm bang on accurate; both by weight and by volume.

farmboyphotography

Let's look at that statement: The caloric content of food can vary up to 20% either above or below the posted amount. I assume that is true, and as such, the law of averages suggests that from day to day and week to week, your total calories will be close to zero net gain or loss due to inaccuracies in labeling of food nutrition information.

But that is just speculation on my part. I would think that food companies would want to lowball their calorie counts. As people become more conscious of what they eat, lower calories are better, right? Of course... so nutrition information would look more attractive if the total calories was lower. What is to stop a food company from saying their calories were as low as legally permitted?

lodro

That's great, but I'm not. I'm not in the US, so volume measures say nothing to me. Most of the measures in the MFP database are in cubs and tablespoons.

baisleac

Easy fix... don't eat packaged foods.

yes, every apple is exactly the same calorie count, as is every banana on earth.

:noway:

The variance in calories between 4 oz of this Pink Lady apple and 4 oz of that Pink Lady apple are completely negligible.

ebkins7

I agree that "part" is a good quantity to eat. Overestimating can be a problem, and a lot of people neglect to deduct the calories they would have burned anyway, doing nothing.

from my understanding MFP all ready takes into account calories burned "doing nothing"...

I just listed to my body and try to get in as much healthy foods as possible. But I don't deprive myself of the things that I love either! For me this isn't about a "diet"... diets don't work... life style changes do!!! Food is fuel and we need to be smarter about what we fuel our bodies with!

baisleac

That's great, but I'm not. I'm not in the US, so volume measures say nothing to me. Most of the measures in the MFP database are in cubs and tablespoons.

Add your own entries in liters and grams.

Azuleelan

Great!!! More backup for my opinion that one should not eat back those exercise calories! Thanks for that

givprayz

But keep in mind the errors go both ways. The number of calories is likely to be lower nearly as often as it is higher. I also am a stickler for fat removal from meats, but the calorie counts expect you to eat that fat. In packaged meals, the calories are for every drop of sauce, which I seldom finish, and canned goods include the fluids around the item, which most of us drain off.

Honestly, I think, given all of the variables, the calorie counts we have are pretty accurate over the long-haul. Yes, I might under-estimate today, but tomorrow I over-estimate, so it evens out in the end. Human error is more often to blame, so measuring is your best defense there. If I feel I can't be accurate, I pull out the scale or the measuring cup. If I'm out, I always opt to over-estimate.

That said, the debate about eating exercise calories will continue ad-infinitum. I don't look at it as calories, but as building blocks. If I don't give my body the building materials it needs to recover from exercise, it will take those materials from my lean muscle mass, my bones, and my organs. I think I'll stick to eating most of those "building blocks" instead.

Achoooo

I eat back all mine so far, because I feel the need to. I measure everything. I've lost 2.5 pounds in 2 weeks. Is it slow? Sure. Would most people hate to lose that slow? Sure. But I don't have a lot to lose, and it works best for me to go slow.

My point is, do what works for you, and if what your doing stops working, tweak it.
For me, I'll eat back all my cals until I hit a slump, then I'll try to leave 100-200 left.

I would honestly like to be leaving 100 left over, but I haven't been able to, I workout a LOT and am usually quite hungry.
What I like about this site is, if you are honest you can start to look back and see what works and what doesn't, make adjustments and give it a try. You probably need a lot of patience, but it's worth it for me.

hummzz

Its very seldom I eat back my exercise cals and I'm doing just fine! I feel like if you change the way you eat and cook then you will lose your weight. At least that's what works for ME. I try to eat and cook what I will continue to eat after I reach my goal. So I've changed my lifestyle. I still eat ice cream and pizza and even a milky way...I just don't eat a large bowl of ice cream or 4 pieces of pizza and a super sized milky way and I don't do it every day. So this is what works for me because I don't want to get to the end of my journey and then eat me a milky way and gain 10 pounds. Does that make sense?

wmjrigo

LMAO!!!!!

kittyinaz

Easy fix... don't eat packaged foods.

So meat wouldn't have a nutrition label? Meat is pretty darn natural IMO. And meat requires having a package for sanitary reasons. I believe you mean don't eat overly processed foods such as pasta. Even rice comes in a package.

This has nothing to do with exercise calories and everything to do with mis-estimating your calorie consumption.

My point was that leaving 100 or so of your exercise cals uneaten can help alleviate any errors, whether it be nutritional labels or your own measuring errors.

donicagalek

If I go into starvation mode I'm going to eat *you* for making me paranoid. And I'll coat you in splenda and aspartame and refuse to drink any water with the meal so I'll dehydrate and die from chemical anarchy.

This is actually directed at nobody, I'm just a little stir crazy because I've got this really annoying cold and I've spent the better part of the past few hours trying to figure out if the calories I logged for dinner were accurate (I peeled the skin off my leg quarter after baking at 400F on a rack and letting the fat drip out). I have issues. Don't be me - that's the best advice I can give. X-D

kittyinaz

Great!!! More backup for my opinion that one should not eat back those exercise calories! Thanks for that

I'm not saying you shouldn't eat any of them, but leaving 50-100 can help reduce any impact of over measuring or label miscalculations.

baisleac

Easy fix... don't eat packaged foods.

So meat wouldn't have a nutrition label? Meat is pretty darn natural IMO. And meat requires having a package for sanitary reasons. I believe you mean don't eat overly processed foods such as pasta. Even rice comes in a package.

That's just nitpicking.

You don't have to rely on store or packaging company to tell you what the nutritional information for a round steak is, or a cup of broccoli, or a 1/2 c. uncooked rice. You DO have to rely on Nabisco to tell you the nutritional information of Cheese Its (or however it's spelled).

kittyinaz

That's just nitpicking.

You don't have to rely on store or packaging company to tell you what the nutritional information for a round steak is, or a cup of broccoli, or a 1/2 c. uncooked rice. You DO have to rely on Nabisco to tell you the nutritional information of Cheese Its (or however it's spelled).

What's your source then. You aren't born knowing the calories of natural food items. Tasting a strawberry I would assume there's many more calories per strawberry than it actually has.

baisleac

That's just nitpicking.

You don't have to rely on store or packaging company to tell you what the nutritional information for a round steak is, or a cup of broccoli, or a 1/2 c. uncooked rice. You DO have to rely on Nabisco to tell you the nutritional information of Cheese Its (or however it's spelled).

What's your source then. You aren't born knowing the calories of natural food items. Tasting a strawberry I would assume there's many more calories per strawberry than it actually has.

Google. Compare multiple sites. Caloriecount.com, Livestrong.com, nutritiondata.self.com, the USDA database, nutrition.gov, calorieking.com, etc.; no reason to fudge numbers.

kittyinaz

Google. Compare multiple sites. Caloriecount.com, Livestrong.com, nutritiondata.self.com, the USDA database, nutrition.gov, calorieking.com, etc.; no reason to fudge numbers.

The USDA database is where companies get their sources. I have been on there all day verifying recipe accuracy for my company. And even using USDA, if they package pre-cut fruit (which we do) we only have to be within 40% above or below. And that's for fruit, not just Cheese It's.

fitterpam

I agree that "part" is a good quantity to eat. Overestimating can be a problem, and a lot of people neglect to deduct the calories they would have burned anyway, doing nothing.

from my understanding MFP all ready takes into account calories burned "doing nothing"...

I just listed to my body and try to get in as much healthy foods as possible. But I don't deprive myself of the things that I love either! For me this isn't about a "diet"... diets don't work... life style changes do!!! Food is fuel and we need to be smarter about what we fuel our bodies with!

It does - and so those calories are double counted as allowable. Exercise calories are the calories you are burning during the measurement time, doing the action. Well that's on top of your daily calorie allowance (so you're double counting the calories to function). This would definitley impact someone who spends a lot of time working out or a long term daily excursion (hiking in the woods for 4 hours).....but I digress....

All of this information is just estimates...you just cannot reasonably take into account all the factors that contribute to energy in and energy out. During specific phases of life, your body processes food differently and so a calorie from when you were 18 is not going to be the same kind of calorie as when you're 60. If you aim for within 100 calories above or below your goal calories and work towards weekly targets instead of daily.....

baisleac

Google. Compare multiple sites. Caloriecount.com, Livestrong.com, nutritiondata.self.com, the USDA database, nutrition.gov, calorieking.com, etc.; no reason to fudge numbers.

The USDA database is where companies get their sources. I have been on there all day verifying recipe accuracy for my company. And even using USDA, if they package pre-cut fruit (which we do) we only have to be within 40% above or below. And that's for fruit, not just Cheese It's.

Gee... that would be why, if I buy pre-packaged apples (which I've done on occasion), I don't rely on the packager's numbers. The packager is allowed to round, significantly.

MSDRIZZ

Or order measuring cups, spoons and a scale from the internet that has American measurements..

That's great, but I'm not. I'm not in the US, so volume measures say nothing to me. Most of the measures in the MFP database are in cubs and tablespoons.

Add your own entries in liters and grams.