why you should eat your exercise calories ( for dummies)

Options
13

Replies

  • Ilovedrinkingtea
    Ilovedrinkingtea Posts: 597 Member
    Options
    I think you guys are being a bit harsh. She isn't actually calling people dummies, she is playing off the popular series of "for dummies" books, written for novices on the topic of the book. It is a play on words, and I am sure she means no disrespect or to be mean.

    Yeah totally true, everyone's heard of those books. xx
  • myofibril
    myofibril Posts: 4,500 Member
    Options
    The "should I eat my exercise calories or should I not eat them" is a redundant question.

    The real questions are what is my total calorie deficit, is it suitable for my goal (fat loss as opposed to weight loss) and my current body composition.

    Just read this: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/173853-an-objective-look-at-eating-exercise-calories

    And if you think your dummies have it bad, mine is severely depressed after reading this thread the poor thing:

    6106crash_test_dummy.jpg
  • JNick77
    JNick77 Posts: 3,783 Member
    Options
    The "should I eat my exercise calories or should I not eat them" is a redundant question.

    The real questions are what is my total calorie deficit, is it suitable for my goal (fat loss as opposed to weight loss) and my current body composition.

    Just read this: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/173853-an-objective-look-at-eating-exercise-calories

    And if you think your dummies have it bad, mine is severely depressed after reading this thread the poor thing:

    ^
    This.

    For more reading you can also checkout a topic called G-Flux on the PrecisionNutrition site.
  • jeffpettis
    jeffpettis Posts: 865 Member
    Options
    this post did say for dummies. meaning people you havent worked out

    I don't think you meant it that way, but you just called anyone who has never worked out a dummy. :laugh:

    Actually you only quoted half of what she said. Here, look at the other half, please:

    "...what works best for them and then they go and have a net of 600 or whatever."

    Lighten up people, It was a joke! I know exactly what she meant.
  • minnie86
    minnie86 Posts: 187
    Options
    I also think it's case by case. Most of the time I do eat back my cals, sometimes I eat a portion, sometimes none. It really depends how I feel. I had the same question, and someone told me to eat how I feel. Your body will let you know.
    Thanks for info
    Correct me if i'm wrong, but I think the calorie counter already takes into account the deficit. So eating your calories back, doesn't get rid of the deficit
  • deesjourney2fit
    deesjourney2fit Posts: 118
    Options
    lol ...so pointless to argue this people....Its about what your body allowwssss....some people it works for..soem ti doesnt...No one is ness ..a dummy or wrong.....if you doing one and it aint working for u..try the others..and i dont mean half assing one..but then complaining about it not working..i mean ..actually doing ittt


    You eat your calories back..and you lose weight..then shid...lol keep it up


    You eat your calories back and you maintain or gain..then dontttt keep eating em backk.....


    Dadgumm people lol i swear peopel argue this point every other minute how bout..ask ur doctor and see what he or she says ....


    and..another reason why people may be gaining weight back when they eat calories back is because..they dotn use a heart rate monitor and go strictly by mfp exercise calories..and are actually eating back all those calories but didnt even burnnn all of em...that could be to...

    I actually think you are on something with this. If you are not wearing an HRM and accurately tracking exactly how many calories you are burning for your exercise then you do run the risk of eating back MORE then you actually burned. If it is accurately tracked, no one should have a problem.
  • jenniferfelice
    jenniferfelice Posts: 61
    Options
    the way I do it is that I put my calorie goal a bit higher (at 1600) so that I don't have to eat back my exercise calories...I'm doing Turbo Fire by the way and I seem to burn about 400 calories per work out depending...so far this has worked out for me...but I'm sure that once I am done with that program I'll start the whole eating back and such :)
  • JNick77
    JNick77 Posts: 3,783 Member
    Options
    lol ...so pointless to argue this people....Its about what your body allowwssss....some people it works for..soem ti doesnt...No one is ness ..a dummy or wrong.....if you doing one and it aint working for u..try the others..and i dont mean half assing one..but then complaining about it not working..i mean ..actually doing ittt


    You eat your calories back..and you lose weight..then shid...lol keep it up


    You eat your calories back and you maintain or gain..then dontttt keep eating em backk.....


    Dadgumm people lol i swear peopel argue this point every other minute how bout..ask ur doctor and see what he or she says ....


    and..another reason why people may be gaining weight back when they eat calories back is because..they dotn use a heart rate monitor and go strictly by mfp exercise calories..and are actually eating back all those calories but didnt even burnnn all of em...that could be to...

    I actually think you are on something with this. If you are not wearing an HRM and accurately tracking exactly how many calories you are burning for your exercise then you do run the risk of eating back MORE then you actually burned. If it is accurately tracked, no one should have a problem.

    But that's kind of the problem with tracking your calorie expenditure, the devices that "track" your calorie expenditure are not that precise. You can really only look at what the meter on the treadmill or HRM says as an approximation at best.

    It's like one of the other posters said, if you setup your calorie deficit high enough to lose weight at a healthy rate then there's no reason to eat them back.

    I'm not saying this to be argumentative but there seems to be a lot of "opinion" and "gut feeling" on this subject and there really is more fact base out there.

    One gentlemen posted this article: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/173853-an-objective-look-at-eating-exercise-calories
    This website is run completely by nutritions and physiologists, this is another great read: http://www.precisionnutrition.com/all-about-g-flux
  • hiitgirl81
    hiitgirl81 Posts: 1
    Options
    I agree with you, your body needs to be in somewhat of a defecit in calories in order to lose weight if you eat exactly what your bodys basic metabolic rate is then your not going in to the defecit so you wount lose weight unfortunatley:(

    I think it is importat to eat after you work out for sure but u still need to be in that defecit at the end of the day
  • JNick77
    JNick77 Posts: 3,783 Member
    Options
    I agree with you, your body needs to be in somewhat of a defecit in calories in order to lose weight if you eat exactly what your bodys basic metabolic rate is then your not going in to the defecit so you wount lose weight unfortunatley:(

    I think it is importat to eat after you work out for sure but u still need to be in that defecit at the end of the day

    Right, and that leaves you more in a mainenance mode. Additionally, that's why it's important to setup a safe calorie deficit target. You need to have more calories out than in but not to the point where you're unable to function or through your body into preservation mode or whatever you want to call it.
  • jeffpettis
    jeffpettis Posts: 865 Member
    Options
    I'm not going to get in this argument one way or the other, but as I was reading all the replys to the OP, it dawned on me that since I started trying to lose a few pounds, I haven't stopped eating anything that I used to eat besides a few sweets now and then, and the 4 or 5 Mt. Dew's a day, the only difference is I started working out again. So if I still eat the way I always have, and I burn 600 or 700 calories a day working out, this means I would have to eat alot more now. Now I know that if I was trying to bulk up I would need to eat alot more calories, but I am just trying to lose a few, so I don't think the statement that "everyone needs to eat back their exercise calories" is true, it all depends on the person, their body, and their goals.
  • deesjourney2fit
    deesjourney2fit Posts: 118
    Options
    My HRM is set to me, my height/weight/heart rate, etc. I wear a device around my chest which ties into a wrist watch. It montiors my heart rate and tells me if it's too high. It is much more accurate then just plugging in that I was on an exercise bike for 30 minutes. It's my personal preference. I do not want to get dragged into an argument or debate. I was just agreeing with another poster.

    Thanks
  • registers
    registers Posts: 782 Member
    Options
    lol ...so pointless to argue this people....Its about what your body allowwssss....some people it works for..soem ti doesnt...No one is ness ..a dummy or wrong.....if you doing one and it aint working for u..try the others..and i dont mean half assing one..but then complaining about it not working..i mean ..actually doing ittt


    You eat your calories back..and you lose weight..then shid...lol keep it up


    You eat your calories back and you maintain or gain..then dontttt keep eating em backk.....


    Dadgumm people lol i swear peopel argue this point every other minute how bout..ask ur doctor and see what he or she says ....


    and..another reason why people may be gaining weight back when they eat calories back is because..they dotn use a heart rate monitor and go strictly by mfp exercise calories..and are actually eating back all those calories but didnt even burnnn all of em...that could be to...

    I actually think you are on something with this. If you are not wearing an HRM and accurately tracking exactly how many calories you are burning for your exercise then you do run the risk of eating back MORE then you actually burned. If it is accurately tracked, no one should have a problem.

    But that's kind of the problem with tracking your calorie expenditure, the devices that "track" your calorie expenditure are not that precise. You can really only look at what the meter on the treadmill or HRM says as an approximation at best.

    It's like one of the other posters said, if you setup your calorie deficit high enough to lose weight at a healthy rate then there's no reason to eat them back.

    I'm not saying this to be argumentative but there seems to be a lot of "opinion" and "gut feeling" on this subject and there really is more fact base out there.

    One gentlemen posted this article: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/173853-an-objective-look-at-eating-exercise-calories
    This website is run completely by nutritions and physiologists, this is another great read: http://www.precisionnutrition.com/all-about-g-flux

    To both posters, i did a little experiment, I entered that i did 15 minutes of walking. It said I burned 75 calories, I reduced my weight by 100lbs, and entered i did 15mins of walking. It still said 75 calories. Some people say they didn't have that issue. Yes that's very true, the caloric expenditure is extremely high on this website. That's why I don't log my exercise, you should use a heart rate monitor if you enter your calories.
  • stormieweather
    stormieweather Posts: 2,549 Member
    Options
    MFP ALREADY HAS A CALORIE DEFICIT BUILT IN.

    Did you tell your nutritionist that?
    Did you tell them what the net calories are after you burn off 700 calories?

    Most weight loss plans have you reduce calories slightly in addition to working out to create THE SAME DEFICIT THAT MFP AUTOMATICALLY GIVES YOU when you set your goals. So that you can lose weight without working out. So it will work for everyone.

    Eating your exercise calories back does NOT work nearly as well if you over estimate your exercise calories or if you underestimate your food intake or you're mistaken in your activity level. But if you follow the MFP plan and do it accurately, it does work. Very, very effectively. So effectively that the site is recommended by fitness professionals and physicians quite frequently.
  • jeffpettis
    jeffpettis Posts: 865 Member
    Options

    To both posters, i did a little experiment, I entered that i did 15 minutes of walking. It said I burned 75 calories, I reduced my weight by 100lbs, and entered i did 15mins of walking. It still said 75 calories. Some people say they didn't have that issue. Yes that's very true, the caloric expenditure is extremely high on this website. That's why I don't log my exercise, you should use a heart rate monitor if you enter your calories.

    That's strange, I'm not doubting what it said by any means. But when I enter my time for working out everyday MFP is always 100-300 calories less than my HRM. Not sure if it is the way I have everything set up on my goals or what. I just find it odd???
  • registers
    registers Posts: 782 Member
    Options

    To both posters, i did a little experiment, I entered that i did 15 minutes of walking. It said I burned 75 calories, I reduced my weight by 100lbs, and entered i did 15mins of walking. It still said 75 calories. Some people say they didn't have that issue. Yes that's very true, the caloric expenditure is extremely high on this website. That's why I don't log my exercise, you should use a heart rate monitor if you enter your calories.

    That's strange, I'm not doubting what it said by any means. But when I enter my time for working out everyday MFP is always 100-300 calories less than my HRM. Not sure if it is the way I have everything set up on my goals or what. I just find it odd???
    It might even be how you have things set up.. MY point was if you weigh more and lets say walk a mile, you'd burn more calories than someone who weighs less your body is working harder.
  • jeffpettis
    jeffpettis Posts: 865 Member
    Options
    Maybe if one of the moderators or creators of the site could let everyone know how the site is set up (eat or not eat) that would stop all these arguments. Every few days it's the same post over and over again.
  • jeffpettis
    jeffpettis Posts: 865 Member
    Options

    To both posters, i did a little experiment, I entered that i did 15 minutes of walking. It said I burned 75 calories, I reduced my weight by 100lbs, and entered i did 15mins of walking. It still said 75 calories. Some people say they didn't have that issue. Yes that's very true, the caloric expenditure is extremely high on this website. That's why I don't log my exercise, you should use a heart rate monitor if you enter your calories.

    That's strange, I'm not doubting what it said by any means. But when I enter my time for working out everyday MFP is always 100-300 calories less than my HRM. Not sure if it is the way I have everything set up on my goals or what. I just find it odd???
    It might even be how you have things set up.. MY point was if you weigh more and lets say walk a mile, you'd burn more calories than someone who weighs less your body is working harder.

    You are correct about the amount burned for two different body weights, I was just saying, for me, the calorie expenditure is very low as opposed to my HRM.
  • stormieweather
    stormieweather Posts: 2,549 Member
    Options
    Maybe if one of the moderators or creators of the site could let everyone know how the site is set up (eat or not eat) that would stop all these arguments. Every few days it's the same post over and over again.

    The site is set up to eat your exercise calories, which is why they are added to your calorie goal.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/faq
    2. As you eat and exercise throughout the day, you need to log your meals and exercise in our Food and Exercise diaries. MyFitnessPal will calculate the number of calories you've consumed and burned from exercise and let you know how many calories you have left to eat for the day. If you stick within your calorie limits, you should achieve the weight loss you're looking for.

    Stormieweather
    MFP Forum Moderator
  • registers
    registers Posts: 782 Member
    Options

    To both posters, i did a little experiment, I entered that i did 15 minutes of walking. It said I burned 75 calories, I reduced my weight by 100lbs, and entered i did 15mins of walking. It still said 75 calories. Some people say they didn't have that issue. Yes that's very true, the caloric expenditure is extremely high on this website. That's why I don't log my exercise, you should use a heart rate monitor if you enter your calories.

    That's strange, I'm not doubting what it said by any means. But when I enter my time for working out everyday MFP is always 100-300 calories less than my HRM. Not sure if it is the way I have everything set up on my goals or what. I just find it odd???
    It might even be how you have things set up.. MY point was if you weigh more and lets say walk a mile, you'd burn more calories than someone who weighs less your body is working harder.

    You are correct about the amount burned for two different body weights, I was just saying, for me, the calorie expenditure is very low as opposed to my HRM.

    That is weird. do you take any stimulants that can increase your heart rate? Are you sure it's setup correctly, if you lost weight, have you input that in to the heart rate monitor? I honestly never used a heart rate monitor that tells you how many calories you burn. I can tell you this though, you can't predict caloric expenditure with heart rate alone, you also need to input weight, or something else, some even use VO2MAX. If you have to input weight, if you lost weight, have you input your new weight in to the HRM??? Or is the activity on MFP set to low? such as sedentary/moderate... etc... there are many factors that come in to play. you know? Your HRM might be right, or MFP might be right.

Categories