to eat the excercise cals or not?

wendiekins

I joined MFP 13 days ago as I am determined to lose weight whilst getting fitter, but could really do with some-one to clarify all this 'eating your excercise cals back' malarkey!! and yes, I've read LOTS of 'advice' posts here already, but taking yesterday as an example, eating all my excercise calories back like recommended, at the end of the day it said I'd be 170lbs in 5 weeks but if I had undereaten by 300cals it says I'd be 167lb!! which sort of defeats the point of having to eat the cals back & totally contradicts the copious amounts of information/ theories of 'eating the excercise cals or your body will go into starvation mode' !??
so.... confused .com!!
is eating ALL the excercise cals back just for maintaining your weight?
some-one please help!

Enforcer25

When you put in how much you want to lose a week, MFP calculates how many calories you need to lose that amount, if you eat all your exercise calories back, you will lose the amount of weight a week you wanted, if you don't eat them all back, you will lose more than what you specified you wanted to lose.

Teliooo

I read a great blog by oe of my MFP who did a test over a few days. He came to the conclusion that eating half back is the best way. x

wendiekins

Enforcer - I understand that bit... the point I am trying to get answered is why it says I'd lose more if by undereating my cals should put me into 'starvation mode' by giving me too low a net cal figure

wendiekins

I read a great blog by oe of my MFP who did a test over a few days. He came to the conclusion that eating half back is the best way. x

perhaps I should test that theory? thankyou

snookumss

Because "Mathematically" you would lose more. Notice it also says they are an estimate based on calories inputted. If you go into starvation mode, you defeat the formula its using.

Gail3260

I read a great blog by oe of my MFP who did a test over a few days. He came to the conclusion that eating half back is the best way. x

perhaps I should test that theory? thankyou

Good idea....13 days is quite a short time and you need to experiment over a longer period to see what works for you.

HeidiMightyRawr

Enforcer - I understand that bit... the point I am trying to get answered is why it says I'd lose more if by undereating my cals should put me into 'starvation mode' by giving me too low a net cal figure

If a lower amount of calories was all it took to lose weight, then you would lose more by not eating your exercise calories, but because chances are you're undereating if you don't (net cals under 1200) then weight loss can actually stop.

I take it you've already entered how much weight per week you would like to lose, if you wanted to lose 1lb a week, MFP would take a 500 cal deficit away from your maintenance amount. If you burn another 500 cals through exercise your deficit is now 1000, which could be too high, which is why you eat them back, to stay at 1lb a week loss (or whatever your target)

SuperScrabbleGirl

In no way is this scientific fact, but if you have more weight to lose (50+ pounds say) I wouldn't be eating my exercise calories. If you only have a smaller amount to lose (less than 50) I'd be eating back half by upping my protein.

ActiveFaith10

http://shouldieatmyexercisecalories.com/

morganadk2_deleted

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

Jennifernellwebb

I love having those extra calories at the end of the day. I , personally,normally eat right at 1200 calories a day and w/ my exercise calories earned, they keep me in the green on my important things that I don't want to go over on ( CARBS, FAT, AND CALORIES. ) If I even tried to eat more, I would go over on those for sure. That is "my personal" goal, not anything that is set in stone anywhere. I don't see the point in eating 1200 calories and it all be fat and carbs. It works for me but may not work for many others (????) Just so you know. I am, by no means, a pro at this. I am learning as I go. Hope that helps and good luck to you...

SusanMcAvoy

I like when it says "In 5 weeks you will weigh...." and it's a lower number. I hardly ever eat my exercise calories unless I intend to blow my diet. I like having the cushion. I haven't gone into starvation mode yet. Sure my weight loss is slow at times but all in all I haven't done so bad. 34 pounds for half a year is good, and healthy. To be honest, I just don't think I need to eat more to lose weight. I never could grasp the theory. Sorry guys! Maybe starvation mode would happen if someone only ate every few days or something like that. I stay around 1100 a day unless I go out and party. My weight loss is real too, beacuse when I do go out to party the weight gain is only temporary. Good luck everyone!

lemonychick

In no way is this scientific fact, but if you have more weight to lose (50+ pounds say) I wouldn't be eating my exercise calories. If you only have a smaller amount to lose (less than 50) I'd be eating back half by upping my protein.

This is what I do too.......Although after a big workout, I do eat some of my exercise cals, just because I'm starving!!!

wendiekins

http://shouldieatmyexercisecalories.com/

I LOL'ed at this
(but the contained links were very informative, thanx )

MrsWibbly

Personally, because I am so short that I hit the MFP minimum of 1200 so cannot lose more than 1/2 lb per week by their calcs I usually eat between 60 and 80% of my exercise calories back so that I can aim for a 1 - 1.5 lbs loss per week (this works when I count calories properly and exercise at least 20 mins daily. On days when I do a lot of low impact exercise I sometimes end up about 250-300 calories under, other days its more like 50 under.

(although right now I have been so busy that I have fallen off the wagon - back on today though!)

wendiekins

Enforcer - I understand that bit... the point I am trying to get answered is why it says I'd lose more if by undereating my cals should put me into 'starvation mode' by giving me too low a net cal figure

If a lower amount of calories was all it took to lose weight, then you would lose more by not eating your exercise calories, but because chances are you're undereating if you don't (net cals under 1200) then weight loss can actually stop.

I take it you've already entered how much weight per week you would like to lose, if you wanted to lose 1lb a week, MFP would take a 500 cal deficit away from your maintenance amount. If you burn another 500 cals through exercise your deficit is now 1000, which could be too high, which is why you eat them back, to stay at 1lb a week loss (or whatever your target)

so by undereating by those 300 cals I wouldnt have been in 'starvation mode' but losing 2lb a week? and yes, I had it set at 1lb a week weight loss as recommended, that may explain it?... it may have just not been allowing me to lose more than a1lb perhaps

SuperScrabbleGirl

In no way is this scientific fact, but if you have more weight to lose (50+ pounds say) I wouldn't be eating my exercise calories. If you only have a smaller amount to lose (less than 50) I'd be eating back half by upping my protein.

This is what I do too.......Although after a big workout, I do eat some of my exercise cals, just because I'm starving!!!

Totally! You've got to listen to your body. If you're hungry, then eat! But, you know, do it wisely (as you do).

fteale

I would be inclined to suggest that you are unlikely to get fitter if you don't eat your exercise cals. You will lose weight faster, but feel weak.

merlinthegrey

This seems to be one of the hardest concepts to grasp. For me the "body starvation" theory is hard to comprehend. If you dont eat back your calories you don't loose weight because the body holds onto every calorie intake, or so is the theory. Then how, for example when the Chilean miners were trapped with hardly any food did they continue to loose upto !0Kg in body weight - dosn't sound like there is a starvation mode. Or consider POW they become emaciated with little food and were expected to perform very physically demanding tasks like building bridges and roads. Someone must have a "very" definitive answer on this topic as it is driving me crazy too!

psuLemon

Here is my opinion. Browse the forum and look at all the threads about plateaus, stalls or people not losing weight. Then look at the link I provided. There are some many problems with not eating your exercise calories. If you burn too many calories you could lose muscle as opposed to fat due to your bodies needs for calories (as a fuel source). This is very apparent in runners. They may not be over weight but many have very high body fat (not all), especially compared to a person who weight trains of similar size. Two, along with that losing muscle, you actually slow your metabolic rate. Decreasing muscle mass will decrease your Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR); the amount of calories you would burn if you slept for 24 hours in a day. This is one reason why many people eat less as a skinny person as compared to a larger person. If you actually worked to maintain muscle by activitely eating exercise calories to ensure proper nutrition, you can maintain your BMR. This is a fact because i have done it and others can too.

Also, if you want to look liek an athlete, then you really need to train like them. Now I am not saying you need to eat all your exercise calories because MFP can over-estimate but go for the 80% rule.


Just because a person has gone without eating exercise calories, doesn't mean it's healthy or the most beneficial. You have to find a happy median. Also, don't think that eating less with lose more weight faster. It really all depends where you are. If you have 100 lbs to lose, it's easier than a person with 20. The larger you are, the easier weight comes off. It can take people 6months to a year to lose the last 20 lbs. while a person can lose 80 lbs in 6 months. Just keep in mind, the weight didn't come on in a week, so it wont come off in a week.


http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/282320-caloric-intake-body-fat?page=9#posts-4822738

maidentl

This seems to be one of the hardest concepts to grasp. For me the "body starvation" theory is hard to comprehend. If you dont eat back your calories you don't loose weight because the body holds onto every calorie intake, or so is the theory. Then how, for example when the Chilean miners were trapped with hardly any food did they continue to loose upto !0Kg in body weight - dosn't sound like there is a starvation mode. Or consider POW they become emaciated with little food and were expected to perform very physically demanding tasks like building bridges and roads. Someone must have a "very" definitive answer on this topic as it is driving me crazy too!

It doesn't mean that you will stop losing weight forever. It means that your metabolism will slow down in accordance with your intake. If those people you mentioned had never slowed their metabolism, they would have starved to death quickly. It's a defense mechanism of the body.