Calories in vs Calories Out (when exercising)

actresskat

Hi,

I'm a little confused. I know that women should never drop below 1,200 when dieting as you go in starvation mode. But if I eat 1,200 and then burn off 600 cals on exercise, is that okay? Or do I need to 'eat' those cals back!

Any advice on this will be really appreciated. I tried to search in the forums but couldn't find the answer. Just don't want to start off on the wrong note. Thanks!

TavistockToad

eat them back. you should NET 1200.

aimeerowe91

I've been wondering this as well. Sometimes I eat my calories back and sometimes I don't. I feel guilty when I do though...

Kelly_Wilson1990

I talked with both my doctor and my nutritionist about this question. Both said it is not necessary to eat back exercise calories. I choose not to.

Skinny_minny_mo

and if you do eat those calories back, i would imagine they need to be GOOD calories, and not ones high in fat?

I;d prefer not to eat them back

erickirb

Hi,

I'm a little confused. I know that women should never drop below 1,200 when dieting as you go in starvation mode. But if I eat 1,200 and then burn off 600 cals on exercise, is that okay? Or do I need to 'eat' those cals back!

Any advice on this will be really appreciated. I tried to search in the forums but couldn't find the answer. Just don't want to start off on the wrong note. Thanks!

Eating 1200 and burning off 600 is the same as eating 600 and not exercising as 1200- 600 = 600 - 0.

HeidiMightyRawr

The not eating less than 1200 calories means "net" calories. If you burn off 600 you are only netting 600 therefore should be eating those calories back to take you back up to 1200 net.

McKayMachina

I talked with both my doctor and my nutritionist about this question. Both said it is not necessary to eat back exercise calories. I choose not to.

Yeah but MFP already factors in the deficit for you to lose weight. This is why the MFP approach is different.

erickirb

I talked with both my doctor and my nutritionist about this question. Both said it is not necessary to eat back exercise calories. I choose not to.

This is only true if you account for exercise in your daily caloric intake. Most doctors and my nutritionists, will give you more cals than MFP to account for that.

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 (1750*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.

aj_rock

It's a big ole fat 'it depends'. Without knowing how close you are to your goal, it's impossible to tell. If you had a loooot of weight to lose, you could get away with it. 5-10 pounds to lose, not so much.

Skinny_minny_mo

I talked with both my doctor and my nutritionist about this question. Both said it is not necessary to eat back exercise calories. I choose not to.

This is only true if you account for exercise in your daily caloric intake. Most doctors and my nutritionists, will give you more cals than MFP to account for that.

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 (1750*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.

pk...i kinda get it. but what if one isnt exercising much and mainly trying to lose weight by cutting down by eating better? should i still eat in to get to 1200?

erickirb

I talked with both my doctor and my nutritionist about this question. Both said it is not necessary to eat back exercise calories. I choose not to.

This is only true if you account for exercise in your daily caloric intake. Most doctors and my nutritionists, will give you more cals than MFP to account for that.

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 (1750*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.

pk...i kinda get it. but what if one isnt exercising much and mainly trying to lose weight by cutting down by eating better? should i still eat in to get to 1200?

Yes, one major reason is it is very difficult to get the required nutrition, micro and marco nutrients (carbs, fat, protein, vitamins and minerals) on a diet less than 1200 calories. Even at 1200 cals there is no room for "cheating" you have to make every calorie count. If you need to treat yourself you should adjust your weekly goal to a smaller loss per week as with 1200 you don't have the room for empty calories.

gracie_li

No, I don't eat the calories back. I thought that your body wouldn't go into starvation mode as you have already consumed your 1,200 calories a day? I would be interested to know the answer to this!

RuthAne

I only eat exercise calories if i'm hungry.

raven56706

you should still eat those calories back. Your body is a car and it needs the fuel to keep it going. You cant just drive it to half and not refuel. It depends on your goals though. If you are looking to speed up the loss, you dont eat it back but it could be harmful in the end.

actresskat

This is really interesting. There's more of a science to it than eat less, move more theory. From a nutritional point of view you have a good point, and the muscle loss too. As I have a fair way to go I think I'll do a bit of both depending on how I feel and how much energy I have.

Also, anyone recommend cyclic dieting? If so, how many days cycling did you do and at what calorie amounts for you?

erickirb

No, I don't eat the calories back. I thought that your body wouldn't go into starvation mode as you have already consumed your 1,200 calories a day? I would be interested to know the answer to this!

1200 calories with no exercise is fine, but if you burn say 700 and eat 1200 is the same as eating 500 and not exercising as 1200 -700 = 500- 0

Givemewings

Eat them back.

raven56706

I mean this diet is very similar to Weight Watchers and with their plan, after exercising and stuff, you regain points. You regain it but it isnt like you have to consume the food

erickirb

I only eat exercise calories if i'm hungry.

Hunger is not the best indication of the body's nutritional requirements.

Think about an all liquid diet, you could consume 3000+ calories and still be hungry, or you can eat 1000 cals of all veggies and would be stuffed to the max.

charityateet

I talked with both my doctor and my nutritionist about this question. Both said it is not necessary to eat back exercise calories. I choose not to.

First off - you have lost a lot of weight, congratulations!

That being said, I feel that the closer you get to your goal - the harder it will be for you to lose weight if you don't eat your calories back. JMO

:flowerforyou:

lor007

I talked with both my doctor and my nutritionist about this question. Both said it is not necessary to eat back exercise calories. I choose not to.

This may be the case for you, but everyone is different. People closer to their goal weight will have a harder time losing without eating them back. Also, it is healthier to net at least 1,200. What is the point of losing weight if it isn't done in a healthy way?

ETA: I think it also makes a big difference how much a person is exercising. If you are only burning 1-2 hundred a day, it probably isn't as big of a deal (although I still think they should be eaten back). If you are burning 600+ a day, like the OP stated, then it IS a big deal.


OP: Here are some great links to read. They will help you out: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/23912-links-in-mfp-you-want-to-read-again-and-again :flowerforyou:

morganadk2_deleted

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/10589-for-those-confused-or-questioning-eating-your-exercise-calo

lor007

they need to be GOOD calories, and not ones high in fat?

I;d prefer not to eat them back

What is wrong with fat?

crisanderson27

and if you do eat those calories back, i would imagine they need to be GOOD calories, and not ones high in fat?

I;d prefer not to eat them back

Dietary fat doesn't create body fat. There are a couple reasons not to eat trans fat...but in general, if you're eating properly...you can eat as much fat (preferably along with protein) as you want. The whole 'low fat' craze is just that...crazy. And yes, there are many new studys that indicate this...and no, I'm not one of those that has a list of studies bookmarked to post in threads like this.

Sorry for the side track and seeming rant lol...but this myth is something that needs to be crushed.

There's more of a science to it than eat less, move more theory

THIS is the truth. If it weren't, there's no way a 5'7, 212lb guy could get to 175lbs, exercising only three days a week, for 30-45 minutes per session...while still eating between 1800-2500cal.

In three months.

Losing FAT, is more about manipulating hormonal production...and forcing your body into a new genetic role, than it is about calories in vs. calories out.

NovemberJune

1200 is a really general number. it varies by height and weight. you can look up your BMR in tools. I usually eat around my BMR. I do believe that if you are obese, you are not in danger of going into starvation mode. your metabolism will go down a bit though. well, i suppose that's what starvation mode means. lately i have been trying to aim for about 100 calories under my BMR. My BMR is 1600.


http://www.healthscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=512:are-you-in-the-starvation-mode-or-starving-for-truth&catid=102:jeff-novicks-blog&Itemid=267
http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=35501&sc=801
http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html
http://www.nutracheck.co.uk/Library/ForumArticles/Is+starvation+mode+myth+or+fact.html
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/81391-starvation-mode-myths-and-science

raven56706

thats true... mine is 1480 a day... and i try to keep it alittle under that just to make sure i dont go over... but my problem is not exercising... i have to find time to do it but i have a 1 year old and she needs me more..

i cant wait til i get a tv in the basement so i can do INSANITY dvds again... that dvd set makes you work.

marianne_s

I talked with both my doctor and my nutritionist about this question. Both said it is not necessary to eat back exercise calories. I choose not to.

If you're following the calorie target set by MFP (and not your doctor or nutritionist), then please read this to understand how MFP works - http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/186814-some-mfp-basics

TavistockToad

I talked with both my doctor and my nutritionist about this question. Both said it is not necessary to eat back exercise calories. I choose not to.

If you're following the calorie target set by MFP (and not your doctor or nutritionist), then please read this to understand how MFP works - http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/186814-some-mfp-basics

did you explain that MFP gives you a deficit regardless of exercise?

morganadk2_deleted

Are you eating your exercise calories? you may need to eat more -When you exercise this puts you at a deficit. It seems like a lot of people do better when they eat their recommended allowance PLUS their exercise calories. oh and water , water, water!!!

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).


http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/10589-for-those-confused-or-questioning-eating-your-exercise-calo

sandislim

No, I don't eat the calories back. I thought that your body wouldn't go into starvation mode as you have already consumed your 1,200 calories a day? I would be interested to know the answer to this!

1200 calories with no exercise is fine, but if you burn say 700 and eat 1200 is the same as eating 500 and not exercising as 1200 -700 = 500- 0

Calorie wise this might be true - but nutrition wise its not. At 500 cal your hardly getting any nutrients, but you are getting a lot more at 1200 even though you are using up more calories you have more nutrients/vitamins etc. 500 cal doesn't provide that.