Eating Back Calories

Oliverseanj

Morning,

I've been into fitness for a number of years and I had never heard about "eating back calories" before joining this site. So I've been attempting to do some research on the concept, but the only hits that I get regarding it come from "myfitnesspal.com" and other message boards. (google: eating back calories)



So this morning during a physcial I talked to a Dietitian and she also said she was unfamiliar with the practice. So I am wondering what is the basis for recommending "eating back" calories you've burned.

It is my basic understanding (which was verified by her) that in order to lose weight you have to either meet or drop below your caloric restriction..

such as if the diet plan for weight loss is to TAKE IN no more than 1500 calories a day in order to lose weight you have to meet or be below that recommended value no matter what activities you did that day. This is the concept of burning calories through activity.

But it seems like the theory of "eating back" would mean...if my restriction was 1500 calories a day. and I burn 500 doing whatever exercise I choose. I can now eat those 500 calories back ...

When I did my fitness plan on MFP; after adding my workouts in it recommended that I TAKE IN upwards to 6000 calories a day under the "eating back" rule.

I was wondering does anyone have any concert evidence or studies that support "eating back" calories?

tattooedtwiin

This is the second post with the same question in under 20 minutes...You'll find all the opinions and answers by doing a SEARCH in the box above this forum. Good luck! Happy calorie burning!

JoAnn73

According to my health coach NO, if you are trying to lose you do not eat the calories burned.

erickirb

This is only a good idea if you increase your activity level to account for your exercise. changing you activity level will give you more calories so you will be eating enough, without the thought of "eating your exercise calories".

Essentially you are setting your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) then creating a deficit from that to lose weight. This is what most trainer/doctors/nutritionists do. Most professionals will tell you not to eat you exercise calories back because they added it into your TDEE, whereas MFP ignores exercise and only accounts for it when you perform it. Either way should get you to the same place.

As an example say MFP gives you 1450 calories to lose 1 lb/week, and you plan on exercising 5x/week for an average of 400 cals per workout. well MFP will tell you to eat 1450 on the days you don't workout and 1850 on the days you do whereas a "professional" may tell you to eat 1750 everyday regardless if you workout.

So for the week MFP will have you eat 12,150 (1450*2+1850*5) whereas doing it the other way will have you eat 12,250 (1850*7) almost the same number of cals for the week. The issue in not following MFP is if you don't workout the full 5 days or burn more or less than planned. If that is the case you may lose more or less than your goal, whereas MFP will have you lose your goal amount regardless how much you actually workout.

What many MFP do is take the low 1450 and not eat back exercise calories which is wrong, if you are not eating them back then your daily activity level should reflect the higher burn with would be covered in the 1750/day above.

erickirb

According to my health coach NO, if you are trying to lose you do not eat the calories burned.

Yes you do if your intake is as low as MFP gives you. If you start with a higher intake based on TDEE (exercise included) then you don't eat them back, see my previous post above.

SheehyCFC

So for the week MFP will have you eat 12,150 (1450*2+1850*5) whereas doing it the other way will have you eat 12,250 (1850*7) almost the same number of cals for the week. The issue in not following MFP is if you don't workout the full 5 days or burn more or less than planned. If that is the case you may lose more or less than your goal, whereas MFP will have you lose your goal amount regardless how much you actually workout.

In other words - MFP allows more "freedom" so that if you miss a workout or have varied caloric burns - you can be more accurate with your deficit

auburngirl06

Just wanted to say, great explanation!!! Thanks!

jackieb79

It is based on the fact that you are setting a goal to lose 1 or 2 or whatever pounds per week. Your daily calorie intake is calculated based on your goal. If you add more exercise into the mix, you would have to eat more calories to continue losing weight at the rate you chose when you set your goal. If you don't eat them back, you might lose weight faster, but it's never recommended to lose more than two pounds a week anyway, so the idea is you should consume the calories you're burning off through exercise.

Also, your body needs a minimum of 1200 calories per day just to function at rest. If you are burning all the calories that you take in with exercise, you're not leaving your body enough left over to meet it's minimum requirements. So if you are exercising, make sure that your net calorie intake (consumed - burned) equals at least 1200 even if you don't eat back all of the calories burned through exercise.

kapeluza

"One issue that seems to be related to MFP more than any other forum I post on is the question of "to eat or not to eat" the calories one expends exercising. I'm assuming it has something to do with the logging and calculations used on MFP, which I am admittedly unfamiliar with. However, suffice it to say that I get this question in my inbox a few times each week, so it's obviously worth mentioning on the forum.

First, let it be known that there are no universally accepted rules regarding eating them back or not. The reason being is because there's no magic to it - it comes down to energy balance. Nothing more. Let me explain...

Let's try to make this real simple:

Maintenance calorie intake is where calories in = calories out, right?

We know that a calorie deficit is required if fat is to be lost, so calories in < calories out.

Large deficits can have negative effects such as increased cravings, muscle loss, irritability, unsustainability (I made that word up), etc.

So we want a moderate deficit, which I'd label as 20-35% off of your maintenance. There's latitude here, mind you.

So if your maintenance is 2000 calories, anywhere from 1300 to 1600 calories would be realistic for fat loss.

That's a deficit of 400-700 calories per day.

Said deficit, in theory, could come from a number of combinations.

On one end of the spectrum you could simply eat 400-700 calories less per day. This assumes the energy out side of the equation stays reasonably static.

On the other end of the spectrum you could keep eating 2000 calories but increase calories expended via exercise to 400-700 calories per day.

If you went with this latter scenario, you wouldn't have to eat back your exercise calories because the expended calories from exercise put you in the sweet spot, calorically speaking.

Now if you cut calories by 400-700 AND increased activity by 400-700, then you'd be running too large a deficit unless you ate back your exercise calories. I can't express how general this is, but it's something many should listen to. 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.

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?

I'll note that personally I don't worry about any of this with my own training or my clients. I set what I consider sane and productive volumes of various exercise (strength training, energy system development, conditioning for fat loss, etc.). From there, there's really not a lot of variability in energy expenditure since I know, by and large, what volume of exercise is required to drive the adaptations I'm shooting for.

Therefore, the only thing to really manipulate is calorie intake. It's a much cleaner approach but to each his own. Do what you're happy with and what makes the most sense for you. "

kapeluza

"Hello Folks,

So often people personal message me asking me if I think their calories are correct. It seems that people think there is some magical formula that only a very few can figure out. I see so many people on here just popping in numbers and following them heedless of what the numbers mean. I feel it's ULTRA important to know why MFP (and me, and a few others) gives you certain numbers. To that end I will try to empower YOU to be able to understand the basics about calories, calorie deficits, and why we recommend eating exercise calories. With this knowledge you should be able to easily figure out what your calories should be at for reasonable, healthy weight loss. So without further ado, lets get started.

1st things first, a few givens must be stated:

-Everyone's body is slightly different. ALWAYS keep in mind your numbers may not be exactly what MFP thinks simply because everyone's bodies all burn energy at a different rate. Tweaking may be needed.

- MFP's goals wizard is a "dumb" tool. That means it doesn't care whether a specific goal is healthy and/or right for you, it just subtracts the goal deficit from projected maintenance calories. This means that even if you shouldn't be trying for a 2 lb a week loss, MFP won't care, it will still try to help you get there.

-1200 calories is a generic number. It's not right for everyone. It's a baseline minimum given out as a floor by MFP based on prior research by the medical community. NOT everyone will need a minimum of 1200, very small people can go under, and bigger people need more.


OK with those facts firmly set in your mind (please go back and re-read the givens until you have them firmly planted in your skull!), we can continue. Figuring out your perfect deficit isn't magic, it's a few simple formula's base on some basic, worldwide standards, and generally with slight modefication, will work for just about anyone who (besides weight) is generally healthy.

Here's what you need:
Height, weight, age, activity level, sex

NOTE: activity level isn't as mysterious as it sounds. If you have a desk job, and do very little walking throughout the day and don't really perform any sports or physical activities, then you are sedentary, if you do some walking every day (or at least 4 days a week) or other light activity for at least 30 minutes cumulative at least 4 times a week, you are lightly active. If you do 60 minutes of light activity 5 days a week or do some kind of sport that requires walking or light jogging (say swimming or mailman or warehouse employee) then you are active, If you do a physically demanding activity (one that makes you sweat) for 4 days a week or more and for more than 1 hour a day, you are very active (like a coach that runs drills or you play volleyball). When in doubt, go down 1 level, you'd rather burn more than you think than less.

With all these numbers you can generate your BMI. Now I realize BMI is flawed, but for what we're doing it's good enough. After years on here, and doing lots and lots of research, I've been able to associate general BMI ranges with approximate goal levels. This works for about 80 to 85% of people out there (there's always a few that are outside the curve).

So now we can figure out where your goal should be.
Go to the tools section and figure out your BMI:

Generally someone with a BMI over 32 can do a 1000 calorie a day (2 lbs a week) deficit
With a BMI of 30 to 32 a deficit of 750 calories is generally correct (about 1.5 lbs a week)
With a BMI of 28 to 30 a deficit of 500 calories is about right (about 1 lb a week)
With a BMI of 26 to 28 a deficit of about 300 calories is perfect (about 1/2 lb a week)
and below 26... well this is where we get fuzzy. See now you're no longer talking about being overweight, so while it's still ok to have a small deficit, you really should shift your focus more towards muscle building, and reducing fat. This means it is EXTRA important to eat your exercise calories as your body needs to KNOW it's ok to burn fat stores, and the only way it will know is if you keep giving it the calories it needs to not enter the famine response (starvation mode).

With this quick guide you can figure out your goal rather easily. I know many people will say "I can't eat my exercise calories, I gain weight when I do". Well I have news for you, that's not correct. I submit this, if you eat your exercise calories and gain weight 1 of 3 things happened:
1 you were previously in starvation mode, and you upped your calories, and had an immediate weight gain, that's normal, to be expected, and necessary to get your body on track. Give it a month, that will stop, and you, once again, will begin to lose, but this time, in a healthy manner.
2 you incorrectly calculated something, either your exercise calories, your calorie intake, or you put in to large of a goal. Go back and check all your numbers.
3 you haven't given it enough time to work. This site promotes HEALTHY weight loss people. Healthy weight loss doesn't happen in days or weeks, it takes months and years. Each change you make in how you eat needs a month or more to work, be patient, give it time. It will happen.

And to everyone who has a trainer that doesn't agree with eating your exercise calories. I also submit this: In 90% of the cases (and I have talked to a LOT of trainers about this exact topic) they actually DO agree with this method, you just explained it wrong.
Just saying to a trainer "should I eat my exercise calories?" isn't enough, you have to explain to them that MFP already generates a deficit prior to any exercise, therefore the deficit will remain whether you exercise or not. Once you give them that idea, and you are relatively sure they understand the concept then I'll bet they change their tune.

I hope this helps, it's pretty straight forward if you've been here a while, and to you new guys, I recommend going to the message boards link, clicking on the "general diet and weight loss" area, and clicking on those first few posts that have the little mouse trap next to them, they are sticky and will always be there, and are a wealth of knowledge about this site, exercise calories, starvation mode...etc.

regards,

-Banks "

koosdel

Remember, this is a fitness site not a weightloss site.

MoonIite

I was actually against the idea of eating back exercise calories at first, because it seemed counter-productive. I didn't think I was eating back my exercise calories (since I'm using a different site to keep track of my food intake) until I plugged a week's worth of food into MFP tracker. It seems that I actually eat most of my exercise calories, sometimes all if I've done an intense workout that day. I can definitely tell the difference in how I feel (and my body lets me know) if I consume less than 1200 calories. Even at 1200 calories, I don't feel full. I have to have at least 1400/1500 calories to be satiated. I would probably lose more if I don't eat my exercise calories, but then I would have to deal with the hunger pangs and tiredness. So yes, I'm all for the notion of eating back exercise calories. I rather lose weight at a slower pace and feel great, than feel like crap sticking to a low calorie diet.

Oliverseanj

This is only a good idea if you increase your activity level to account for your exercise. changing you activity level will give you more calories so you will be eating enough, without the thought of "eating your exercise calories".

and you see that is the real explanation i can come to however, your caloric restriction should be based on your activity level already, not the calories burned while working out..the OBJECTIVE of working out its to supplement daily activity in order to increase caloric burn. Which is why everyone's caloric restrictions are different and should be personalized. However, if you are just going to eat back the calories you worked out to burn, you're better suited just meeting your caloric restrictions and skipping the workouts because essentially that is what "eating back" calories does, negates the purpose of burning calories to begin with.

Oliverseanj

Remember, this is a fitness site not a weightloss site.

read the title of this forum "general diet and weight loss help"...

and weight loss and diet are a part of fitness my friend

maidentl

However, if you are just going to eat back the calories you worked out to burn, you're better suited just meeting your caloric restrictions and skipping the workouts because essentially that is what "eating back" calories does, negates the purpose of burning calories to begin with.

That's assuming you work out strictly to lose weight. That's not a good idea in the first place because weight loss is 80% diet, 10% exercise and 10% genetics. Exercise is good for increasing the metabolism, cardiovascular health, strength . . . But if you chosee to look at only calories and ignore everything else, sure you can skip the exercise.

erickirb

So for the week MFP will have you eat 12,150 (1450*2+1850*5) whereas doing it the other way will have you eat 12,250 (1850*7) almost the same number of cals for the week. The issue in not following MFP is if you don't workout the full 5 days or burn more or less than planned. If that is the case you may lose more or less than your goal, whereas MFP will have you lose your goal amount regardless how much you actually workout.

In other words - MFP allows more "freedom" so that if you miss a workout or have varied caloric burns - you can be more accurate with your deficit

Exactly

shazzamax11

Remember, this is a fitness site not a weightloss site.

This is also a help you with your weight loss journey, hence why you can track what you eat and count the calories. Fitness and weigh loss go hand in hand !

MamaBear05

[/quote]

However, if you are just going to eat back the calories you worked out to burn, you're better suited just meeting your caloric restrictions and skipping the workouts because essentially that is what "eating back" calories does, negates the purpose of burning calories to begin with.
[/quote]

I disagree with this. For me, the purpose of my exercise is to gain strength and endurance, not to simply burn calories. I am at maintenance now. My activity level is set at sedentary so MFP displays just my caloric needs for existing. I burn 300-500 calories a day from my workouts. On average, I "eat back" all of those calories because I do not want a deficit. I want to be as close to calories in = calories out as possible. So, I average 2000-2200 calories per day. If I go below for several days, I do lose weight.

For those who want the deficit, they have two choices. Set their activity level at sedentary which will give them the number of calories they need to exist, then set how many pounds they want to lose per week and let MFP create the deficit to meet that goal by subtracting the calories from their daily allowance. Any exercise will create a larger deficit. For some, this is icing on the cake and may allow them to lose more weight faster because they are operating at an even greater deficit than they need to meet the pounds per week goal they set. For some, however, the daily deficit becomes too large and is not necessarily healthy. For example, your maintenance needs are 1700 and MFP sets your calorie allowance at 1200 to lose 1 pound per week. You already have your 500 calorie daily deficit. If you exercise each day and burn another 500 calories, you are operating at 700 calories. I am not a doctor so I can't speak to "starvation mode" and what not from eating too few calories, but I cannot imagine your body has enough fuel to effectively run itself and push more for exercise at only 700 calories.

The second option is to set your daily activity level to active or whichever more closely fits your day, including your average activity during exercise. Doing it this way, the calorie allowance that MFP sets already includes the assumed calories you burn on an average day including your exercise, so you do not eat back the exercise calories or it decreases your daily deficit.

I prefer the first way because I am more in control of making my calories in = calories out on a daily basis. On my rest days, I eat my maintenance calories. On days I work out hard, I eat what I burned so I am still as close to in = out as I can be.

I hope all of that made sense.

lizziebeth1028

so in other words (and this has always been my understanding on how it works)... my MFP daily calorie intake is 1470 = which means on the days I don't work out I should eat 1470 or less. On the days I do work out and burn say 400 calories I am allowed to eat those calories back because as long as I'm netting 1470 or less a day I'm still in my set calorie range and will be able to loose. Right????

erickirb

so in other words (and this has always been my understanding on how it works)... my MFP daily calorie intake is 1470 = which means on the days I don't work out I should eat 1470 or less. On the days I do work out and burn say 400 calories I am allowed to eat those calories back because as long as I'm netting 1470 or less a day I'm still in my set calorie range and will be able to loose. Right????

close it should be clost to 1470, not 1470 or less, you don't want to be more than 100 cals from your goal + or -.

koosdel

Remember, this is a fitness site not a weightloss site.

This is also a help you with your weight loss journey, hence why you can track what you eat and count the calories. Fitness and weigh loss go hand in hand !

In most cases, weightloss is a by product of fitness.

Oliverseanj

I disagree with this. For me, the purpose of my exercise is to gain strength and endurance, not to simply burn calories. I am at maintenance now. My activity level is set at sedentary so MFP displays just my caloric needs for existing. I burn 300-500 calories a day from my workouts. On average, I "eat back" all of those calories because I do not want a deficit. I want to be as close to calories in = calories out as possible. So, I average 2000-2200 calories per day. If I go below for several days, I do lose weight.

For those who want the deficit, they have two choices. Set their activity level at sedentary which will give them the number of calories they need to exist, then set how many pounds they want to lose per week and let MFP create the deficit to meet that goal by subtracting the calories from their daily allowance. Any exercise will create a larger deficit. For some, this is icing on the cake and may allow them to lose more weight faster because they are operating at an even greater deficit than they need to meet the pounds per week goal they set. For some, however, the daily deficit becomes too large and is not necessarily healthy. For example, your maintenance needs are 1700 and MFP sets your calorie allowance at 1200 to lose 1 pound per week. You already have your 500 calorie daily deficit. If you exercise each day and burn another 500 calories, you are operating at 700 calories. I am not a doctor so I can't speak to "starvation mode" and what not from eating too few calories, but I cannot imagine your body has enough fuel to effectively run itself and push more for exercise at only 700 calories.

The second option is to set your daily activity level to active or whichever more closely fits your day, including your average activity during exercise. Doing it this way, the calorie allowance that MFP sets already includes the assumed calories you burn on an average day including your exercise, so you do not eat back the exercise calories or it decreases your daily deficit.

I prefer the first way because I am more in control of making my calories in = calories out on a daily basis. On my rest days, I eat my maintenance calories. On days I work out hard, I eat what I burned so I am still as close to in = out as I can be.

I hope all of that made sense.

choosing to eat the required calories and skip workouts (for the purposes of arguing eating back calories) doesn't mean that you necessarily have to have unhealthy eating habits..you can put all your effort into eating right and skip workouts and still lose weight. Maybe not at the desired rate but still effectively. But you can not effectively eat back all the calories you burned and expect to lose weight. No health professional i've spoken with supports this, and truthfully very few places (1 or 2) outside of myfitnesspal.com have i even heard mention of "eating back calories"...

i was just wondering if there is any science that supports this as a good idea.

Oliverseanj

Remember, this is a fitness site not a weightloss site.

This is also a help you with your weight loss journey, hence why you can track what you eat and count the calories. Fitness and weigh loss go hand in hand !

In most cases, weightloss is a by product of fitness.

weight loss is a part of fitness...fitness isn't defined as working out. You won't be able to find 1 "fitness" publication that doesn't include diet and nutrition.

Schwiggity

kennethmgreen

Essentially you are setting your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) then creating a deficit from that to lose weight. This is what most trainer/doctors/nutritionists do. Most professionals will tell you not to eat you exercise calories back because they added it into your TDEE, whereas MFP ignores exercise and only accounts for it when you perform it. Either way should get you to the same place.

This should be posted every day. Maybe similar text should be part of account creation?

I think so many people fall into this argument because they are missing the important distinction you point out above. "Eat your calories back" isn't some universal rule that applies everywhere. It applies HERE on MFP - and in any scenarios where activity isn't included in TDEE.

This simple misunderstanding is why we get so many "my doctor said"/"my nutritionist said"/"my trainer said" posts. They are operating under the assumption that exercise is accounted for already. I am confident most of those experts would say "eat back your exercise calories" (or at least most of them) if they understood how MFP sets things up. It's just math. MFP does it differently than some.

taso42_DELETED

quoting msf74 from a thread from yesterday:

The best explanation on this subject is this:

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

There's nothing really special about "exercise" calories (thermic effect of activity - TEA) in comparison to say spontaneous physical activity (SPA) / non exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) when it comes to energy balance. The way some people bang on about it you would think it is the holy grail of fat loss.

What is important is what your overall calorie deficit is, whether that overall deficit is suitable for your current body composition and fits your goals.

Outside of this website and a few others you won't find any real debate over this subject as more standard calculations are used which tends to result in a simper / cleaner approach.

TourThePast

What do you mean, it's "just" maths? Wash your mouth out with soap and water!

Actually, many dieticians and doctors would agree with not eating back a good proportion of exercise calories, IF the person is clinically obese. There is no "one size fits all" strategy.

taso42_DELETED

What do you mean, it's "just" maths? Wash your mouth out with soap and water!

Actually, many dieticians and doctors would agree with not eating back a good proportion of exercise calories, IF the person is clinically obese. There is no "one size fits all" strategy.

That just means they're making the calorie deficit larger. That's fine, as long as it's the appropriate calorie deficit. Mathematically it works out the same. All of these are the same:

- Setting a 500 cal deficit and working out 500 cals/day and eating back the calories
- Setting no deficit and working out 500 cals/day and not eating back the calories.
- Setting a 500 cal deficit/day and not exercising at all

Get it? No? Then I give up.

solpwr

What do you mean, it's "just" maths? Wash your mouth out with soap and water!

Actually, many dieticians and doctors would agree with not eating back a good proportion of exercise calories, IF the person is clinically obese. There is no "one size fits all" strategy.

That just means they're making the calorie deficit larger. That's fine, as long as it's the appropriate calorie deficit. Mathematically it works out the same. All of these are the same:

- Setting a 500 cal deficit and working out 500 cals/day and eating back the calories
- Setting no deficit and working out 500 cals/day and not eating back the calories.
- Setting a 500 cal deficit/day and not exercising at all

Get it? No? Then I give up.

And the beauty of MFP is that it actually isolates exercise as a controllable variable. In most approaches, exercise levels are factored in to TDEE. The problem of doing so is that some days, some weeks, a person may not expend as many calories due to decreased exercise activity. Or the converse is true, they expend more than expected. Just like the intake variable, where a person counts the calories (fuel) ingested, and manages that to maintain the deficit required to lose weight.

By measuring calories expended through exercise as a variable, the ongoing average calorie deficit can be more closely monitored and accurately accounted for.

It is a clearly superior method. It doesn't mean that doing the math other ways won't achieve a similar result. But other ways leave the exercise variable more to the FAITH that your activity levels are relatively static and predictable. Problematic, in my opinion.

Kimdbro

What do you mean, it's "just" maths? Wash your mouth out with soap and water!

Actually, many dieticians and doctors would agree with not eating back a good proportion of exercise calories, IF the person is clinically obese. There is no "one size fits all" strategy.

That just means they're making the calorie deficit larger. That's fine, as long as it's the appropriate calorie deficit. Mathematically it works out the same. All of these are the same:

- Setting a 500 cal deficit and working out 500 cals/day and eating back the calories
- Setting no deficit and working out 500 cals/day and not eating back the calories.
- Setting a 500 cal deficit/day and not exercising at all

Get it? No? Then I give up.

LMAO, hurts don't it??! This is not complicated, but people sure do make it so.

erickirb

What do you mean, it's "just" maths? Wash your mouth out with soap and water!

Actually, many dieticians and doctors would agree with not eating back a good proportion of exercise calories, IF the person is clinically obese. There is no "one size fits all" strategy.

Yes but the doctor would also give them more than 1200 calories knowing they workout, so in essence they are eating back some of their exercise calories. MFP may tell you to eat 1200 plus your exercise cals whereas the doctor may say eat 1400. If you workout 4 days/week and burn 400 cals per time MFP would have you eat 10,000cals/week (1200*7+4*400) whereas your doctor would have you eat 9,800 (1400*7). Almost the same as MFP would have you eat. But with MFP if you don't workout you will still lose your goal amount of weigh eating 8,400, whereas following your doctor you would eat 9,800.