Eating Back Exercise Calories...???

longtimeterp

I have to say, after a few weeks of deciding to stop eating back my exercise calories and just maintain my diet at a set calorie level regardless of exercise, i have really seen the pounds start to come off. At first i was using the calorie guidelines and if i exercised 1000 calories, i would eat that extra 1000 to keep my net where my calorie goal was. And before you say i was over-estimating my calories exercised, whatever device i was using, be it at the gym , or runkeeper, i took 15% off the calorie totals because i know they can be inaccurate. But this approach just didn't seem to be doing anything for me at all, i was stuck.

I am beginning to think all this stuff about "starvation mode" is just hooey. The less i eat and the more i exercise, the better i feel and the further i progress. And it isn't just weight im losing this way, it's bodyfat % too. I'd love to hear some other thoughts on this. Anybody else finding the same thing or do you completely disagree?

countrymom1

Bump

papastu

100 % agree !

thats how I did it, I think sometimes the exercise cals count if you did a marathon, not a session of 250 cals at the gym.

Even my trainer told me not to eat them back as you could burn off 200 and then go home and eat 200 cals worth of crisps, lol, You know what I mean

lindalou0703

I dont eat my exercise calories, I dont know if its healthy or not. I just dont want to eat that much. Cute dog btw

editara13

Since I started MFP I never ate my burned calories and my weight went off and my body went where I wanted to be. There are different opinions about this topic, but logically not eating the calories with make your weight drop and that what happened to me :-)


Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

_SusieQ_

You're going to get a lot of "opinions" by posting this. I think it depends on how much you have to lose. I know for ME, I have more than 100 lbs I want to lose, so yes, NOT eating back my calories helps to lose more in a week. I know the norm is 1-2 lbs a week, but I don't think 3 is going to harm me, so I try and leave at least 500 calories on the board each day to give me that extra pound. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If you see it stops working, try eating some back. There are theories everywhere, but as long as you aren't causing your body harm, do what works for you.

tlrunyon

I said "almost" the same thing to a friend on Monday!!!! I have felt better this week for not eating my exercise calories and keeping it closer to the recommended calories allowed in my day.

I'm going to keep to my daily recommended total calories allowed....any exercise I do will allow me to have a small goodie, if I choose to do that, but not eat the entire exercise calories. What is the benefit if you do?

I'd also like to hear others views

davidsmitley

Eating back the exercise calories never made sense to me. Occasionally, when I go over my calorie goal a little bit it's good to know the exercise calories give me a little buffer.

ambermichon

it depends on the person. Personally I switch it up every few weeks if I dont see change. Most times I eat more on the days I workout hard and when I dont workout really hard I stick to 1200. It probably really depends on how hard you push yourself. I workout really hard for 1.5-2 hours often burning 700-800 cals and need to eat my exercise cals back and am still losing. If you are only burning 200 cals then I would probably agree with sticking to what MFP says you should eat.

juliapurpletoes

I have always eaten the calories back and am a huge believer in it as a method! That said, I only had 20 pounds to lose and no wiggle room - had to only have small deficit on a daily basis or I wouldn't lose weight.

You on the other hand have more to lose and have the wiggle room, your body will be fine living off it's fat reserves and not punish you with plateaus when you don't eat enough........that is until YOUR last 15-20 pounds........

it is a personal journey and we ALL have to find what works for us!

tlwicklund

I think if you eat the initial daily calorie allowance or somewhere around 1200 cal you're fine regardless of exercise.. calories burned in exercise shouldn't have anything to do with starvation mode, those don't have to be eaten back. you're not going to put you're body in starvation mode unless you are consistently eating under 1000 calories or something like that.

JoyousRen

Just don't exercise then you don't have to deal with this conundrum or better yet, just don't eat!

ChantalGG

I tried that at 1200 calories a day and it didnt work for me. I raised my calories to 1500 and i stopped working out as much and i am losing weight again. I dont eat my calories back unless i am planning to eat a feast.

mandimoore617

I think as long as you are eating HEALTHY and listening to your body & feeding it when it's hungry to give it the fuel it needs, then you don't have to worry about "starvation mode". That being said, I don't think you can get enough healthy nutrients if you eat like 500 calories a day. Then, I do think your body will hit "starvation mode" (think anorexia). Now... for ME, I feel as though 1000 is the cut-off. I have to eat at least 1000 to FEEL healthy & have energy. If I am hungry, I eat (something healthy/low-calorie). I almost always hit the 1200 calorie minimum, but if I don't work out hard one day and I'm just not hungry, then yes... I will allow myself to go a little low. I'm never making myself go hungry or let my stomach rumble. And on days I workout hard, I always get at least 1200 calories, sometimes 1300-1400 depending on the day & amount of exercise. Hope this helps.

HealthyAlp

Eating your exercise calories are a great way to maintain your weight, not so great to lose them. But it's different for everyone, I suppose, based on your metabolism.

porffor

From having done Atkins when I ate meat at the very true start of my journey I'd say that starvation mode is when you start finding ketones in urine - called ketosis. SOME physicians feel this is bad for the body, while others don't.. so I think it's a matter of opinion. So when you constantly have a large deficit of calories or carbs then your body burns it's fat as energy producing the ketones, I think the issues are where not enough water is drunk to 'flush' these out of the body this can cause kidney issues.

I don't eat all my calories, I've one meal left to eat today and it's saying 1100 left to eat.. no way could I eat that and lose weight. I haven't been good for the last couple of months and have noticed a yo-yo of a few lbs where I do eat the calories and where I don't..

Each to their own as with everything else in life.

Getting_Fit_4_Life

I have tried eating back my calories and I found that it was counter productive and didn't work well for me at all. So what I started doing is making sure that I eat about 1200-1350 daily and don't eat back any exercise calories and I started seeing the weigh come off. So my take is while everyone's body is different, for ME eating back calories was not a good idea. Maybe if am closer to my goal weight, then eating back calories might be helpful, but for now it hasn't worked for me and it actually slowed me down. Good luck on finding what works for you

Xaspar

Honestly, I don't believe in the 1200 'net' or 1500 'net' idea... I am more along the lines of 1200 calories MINIMUM. The American College of Sports Medicine recommended that 1200 be the minimum caloric intake because that is the estimate of the caloric total of the variety of foods that a person must take in to provide ALL of the nutrients the body needs through various food sources. NOWHERE have I been able to find that they say that this is a 'NET' amount but it always references a MINIMUM amount.
On the other hand, it has also been recommended that people not have a caloric deficit greater than about 1000 calories per day average for any prolonged period of time (more than a day or two) because of the whole starvation mode theory.


I am not a weight loss professional and I am pretty sure that if anyone had the time and determination to prove me incorrect on the statements above, they will do so. But, I HAVE looked with the limited time resources and web search skills that I have and this is what I have been able to find thus far.

So I have chosen to diet based on the premise of maintenance calories instead. I have set my goal to approximately 100 calories under the MAINTENANCE calories required to maintain my GOAL weight. This way I am learning to survive on the total caloric intake for the weight I want to be at for the rest of my life anyway. (How's that for a lifestyle change?) I don't care if it takes me a year to get there and it's at a snail's pace, I will eventually get there because it is still a deficit. I don't always eat back my exercise calories, I just make sure my overall deficit isn't too high.

vegamy

For me personally, I have to eat back my exercise calories (I exercise a lot - some days I'll spend an hour at the gym in the morning, take a walk at lunch, go running for a couple miles after work, and then go to krav maga - self defense - class). I find that if I don't eat back my exercise calories, I stop losing as much (as in, .2 lbs/wk) and I'm hungry and unsatisfied. When I do eat back my exercise cals, I typically lose 1-2 lbs/wk. It completely depends on the person, though!

ilookthetype

Once more. With vigor.

LOL.

longtimeterp

All these posts make me feel a whole lot better about my approach. And yes, the best advice is if it works FOR ME, than it is the right thing to do until it no longer works. But this makes me feel a whole lot better knowing this method is successful for many people.