Should I really eat back the calories I burned off?

Soccer_chick916

MFP gives you a calorie deficit based on no exercise. If you work out and don't eat your calories your deficit gets bigger. It can become "too big" which make this process harder, slow and / or stop weight loss.

Lets say it takes 2000 calories to maintain without exercise. MFP tells you to eat 1500 to lose a pound a week (deficit of 500 a day). Then you burn 500. Suddenly your deficit is 1000 which can be "too big" so you need to eat 2000 to make up for it.

Exactly. So if you set it to maintain your weight, then exercise, you would NOT eat those calories back. BUT if you set it to LOOSE 1-2 lbs per week. That is built into the calorie deficit. If you don't eat those calories it is dangerous to your body. And will eventually put you into starvation mode and cause you not to loose anything. Try logging in on the site. After you are done with your days food intake hit the complete entry button at the bottom. It will tell you the same thing we are telling you in red letters right next to the button if you do not eat all of your calories.Also check out from the website "my home" then the goals section. Read through it. It will give you a better understanding. If this is not enough to convince you. Google how your metabolism work and google the glycemic index. really helpful stuff.

Good luck to you!!!!!!

SmartFunGorgeous

The experts say yes, but the experts also find a different food that's going to save the world one day and kill you the next, so you have to be sensible. I have worked with eating them back and with not eating them back, and I've found the right balance for me to lose, and it is NOT eating back every single calorie. I eat back some, but not all. It could be because I don't measure everything to the last gram or I over estimate calories burned (though I use MFPs estimates), but I had to figure out what was best for me. In the beginning, I ate them all back, because I exercised so I COULD have the extra calories. But I was only burning 200-300 calories max. Now most days I burn closer to 500-600, and I still only eat about half of them back. Days I have intense cravings, I eat them all.

sirmio

As long as I'm able to adequately recover from my workouts, I don't dip into those "earned" calories.

koosdel

I'm a little confused about why the calories I burned off while working out are added onto my total calories I can eat for the day. Doesn't eating back all the calories you've burned defeat the purpose of working out?

It depends entirely on your goals.

If all you desire is to be thin, then no you don't have to eat them back. Just please don't get to extreme with your deficits.
If you wish to be strong, and 'toned' , and have a nice butt, then you should eat them.

TK421NotAtPost

Over time, large deficits caused by lots of cardio can lead to spotty results. This is why we ocassionaly see a post where someone says, "hey, I went on vacation and ate like crap, but when I stepped on the scale, I lost 2 pounds!". Well, that person was probably eating and exercising at a deficit for quite some time prior to going on vacation.

If you want to accelerate fat loss, eat plenty on days you workout and reserve your large deficits for your rest days.

infamousmk

The reason they do that is because the standard recommendation is you lose 1-2 pounds per week. The weight loss is figured into your daily calorie goal. So let's say your goal is to lose 2lbs (the max they allow to auto calculate) and your daily calorie goal is 1500 calories a day. The daily goal uses your age, weight, gender, and activity level to calculate how many calories you burn without adding workouts. If you burn more than that by exercising you can still eat those calories to maintain your goal weight loss. If I burn 400 calories working out, I could eat an extra 400 to maintain my goals. I'm sure there would be some liability issues if the system allowed for you to have a higher goal than what is deemed medically safe.

Now to really answer your question...

I typically don't eat back the calories I burned off. Sure 1-2 pounds a week is great, and I think healthy if you are losing a small amount of weight <20lbs. I've got a ton of weight to lose and I'd like to burn more like 4-5 pounds a week. If I ate back my exercise calories It'd take me twice as long. I know once I get closer to my goal weight I'll start losing less weight each week. Once I'm at my goal weight I'll eat back my exercise calories.

This is exactly right. And the myth of starvation mode shouldn't be the bogey man it seems to have become (google Minnesota semi-starvation study for the only real scientific study of the issue), and exercise will boost you metabolism and offset any slowing you might experience. I tend to stick around 1200 calories a day, which is 500 below the MFP calculation for me, and I don't eat back the exercise calories, although sometimes (once every 2 weeks) I take a higher calorie day.

The Minnesota Starvation Study PROVED that eating too few calories caused mental deficiencies and health problems. Please read a study in full before using it to support your theory.

And to answer the OP - see what works for you. I tend to believe that eating back some if not all exercise calories is the most rational and safe way to lose weight. You're going to get as many different answers from MFP members are there are ways to get it done. You just have to find the correct number for you.

cragwre

I was wondering the same thing. I think it is okay to eat them back, b/c your caloric intake is still so controlled. Think of it this way: If I eat only 1200 calories a day, I'm gonna lose weight. If I work off 300 calories and then eat those back (putting me at 1500 for the day), I'm still gonna lose weight. In other words, just pretend like you didn't work out at all... Then I'm still at 1200 which equals weight loss. Does this makes sense???

sirmio

The Minnesota Starvation Study PROVED that eating too few calories caused mental deficiencies and health problems. Please read a study in full before using it to support your theory.

Not trying to come off as a jerk or anything, but if you read even an abstract of the study, they patients we're put on a diet for 12 weeks prior to get them close to their ideal weight. After the 12 weeks, all of the participants were under their ideal weight when the experiment started. I'm not implying that you didn't read the full study, but you know it's 1400 pages and published in a scientific journal in the 50's, right?

My understanding of the the starvation mode it that your body just doesn't have a source for those calories after months of deprivation. If you're overweight, your body should use the reserves. I'm not a MD or anything though.

tigeratty

You can't build muscle if you don't eat back those calories. Muscle builds fat.

infamousmk

The Minnesota Starvation Study PROVED that eating too few calories caused mental deficiencies and health problems. Please read a study in full before using it to support your theory.

Not trying to come off as a jerk or anything, but if you read even an abstract of the study, they patients we're put on a diet for 12 weeks prior to get them close to their ideal weight. After the 12 weeks, all of the participants were under their ideal weight when the experiment started. I'm not implying that you didn't read the full study, but you know it's 1400 pages and published in a scientific journal in the 50's, right?

My understanding of the the starvation mode it that your body just doesn't have a source for those calories after months of deprivation. If you're overweight, your body should use the reserves. I'm not a MD or anything though.

No, I haven't read all 1400 pages, but I have read a great deal about it. And if you'd like, I can go to the link everyone uses to point people to the study, and pull quotes that specifically outline the fact that participants experienced severe mood, and sleep issues, as well as serious depression... caused by the limited caloric intake.

Additionally, the study followed men, in the 1950s, some who had physical jobs prior to the experiment. Point being that it's really hard to relate this study's findings to most modern day people's issues with exercise calories.

P.S. you didn't come off as a jerk. I appreciate rational discourse, and if I'm wrong, I want someone to tell me so. I'm no doctor either, but I do not get why so many people tell others to read up on this study, when it doesn't appear to support the theory most people are trying to use it to support (based on my comprehension).

sirmio

Additionally, the study followed men, in the 1950s, some who had physical jobs prior to the experiment. Point being that it's really hard to relate this study's findings to most modern day people's issues with exercise calories.

I think that is a very important point. I've seen plenty of studies indicating that sugar consumption has gone through the roof since then and I'd imagine that other heavily processed foods aren't helping either. Another interesting thing is that the Minnesota Semi-Starvation Study comes up a lot on dieting sites, but as I wrote before, the subjects started the study below their ideal weight. That's not even close to being the same thing as people who are trying to limit caloric intake because they are already clinically overweight.

Thanks for the response, I appreciate it.

love2run

According to your goal, you are supposed to eat a number of calories a day and exercise a number of calories per week. It depends on your goal. Eat the calories that you are supposed to eat a day (1200?) and make sure you exercise by the end of the week the number of calories that you are supposed to exercise (600?). You have to eat your daily calories 1200 and make sure that by the end of the week you exercise 600 calories. Let's say that you are going to exercise three times a week and you do 250 calories the first time; some of those calories should go to the 600. Maybe you want 200 to go to your 600 and you can eat 50 more calories on that day, 1250. You could use all the calories for the 600 and not eat any extra. Or you could eat all of them on that day but knowing that you still have to exercise 600 by the end of the week. You have to plan ahead and make sure that by the end of the week you have those 600 calories exercised. If in your daily intake you eat 1250 one day. That means that you will have exercise those 50 calories that you ate extra. So, instead of exercising 600 that week, you will have to exercise 650. I don't know if this makes sense, but it has worked for me. The more you exercise a week the more calories you will extra to eat. If you exercise 800 calories in the week, that means you can eat 200 calories more during the week.