Eating Back Calories....I JUST DON'T GET IT.

missikay1970

This is how i see it...
Lets say you are saving money for a new car and you need $1000
You make $1000/month. Ideally, you could save up for the car in only one moths time. But u still have to pay rent and buy food, so that "spends" some of your money, lets say $500. This means you will have to work extra (work out) to "earn" money toward your savings. Even if you only earn back part of the deficit, you are still going to eventually get to your savings goal. I try to eat back some calories that i burn, but not all. Keep in mind, everything you record isnt exact, and you have to allow for the fact that some foods are higer in cal than you anticipate and your exercise probably doesnt burn as many cals as a hrm or mfp says. Eating some calories will allow you to gain energ for those workouts, yet not eating them all back will still allow for error.

Helloitsdan

Heres a 14 year old car with 1/8th tank of gas and a dime of oil in it.

Drive it 200 miles to the next gas station!

Good luck!



I can make this less complicated!

If you are 5'2" and up eat at least 1600 daily
5'5" and up eat at least 1800-2k daily
5'7" and above eat 2k-2200 daily

Then work out to create a deficit.


That way if you miss a workout because of real life you still have the proper nutrition.

AlwaysWanderer

But you seemed to be advocating not eating the calories back at all.

Yes your way of eating tham back in the right macros is probably the right way to do it, but eating them back simply as part of a persons normal healthy calorie intake, is better than not eating than and trying to survive on a net of 700 calories.


.

Not the only one, actually.
If you think about it, your body uses FAT STORES for daily activities. For exercise, glycogen. I agree you need to replace the glycogen burnt, but why not work in into your calorie allowance? Why would you want to replace calories if they were from fat stores?



Correct.

They aren't trying to survive on 700 calories. They ingested 1200 calories. If you train say 4x a week and don't digest the extra 500 cals, you will have an extra 2000 calories burnt from your fat stores. Thats not a huge amount of difference and will not put you at any risk, its an extra half a pound of fat. Also the body prefers to use fat stores when pushed with weights and steady state cardio which most people will do.

You are the only person I have seen on here that believes netting 700 calories is OK.

but somehow looking at your profile, I doubt that has ever been an issue for you

lambertj

It's all in how you set up your BMR to begin with................

I think I have finally figured out the scoop on "to eat your exercise calories back or not"

First figure out your BMR, now if you entered sedetary but in reality you workout 5 times a week then you do want to eat some of your exercise calories back (perhaps 1/2) but if when you figured our your BMR you chose the option that you work out 5 times a week then don't eat your exercise calories back.

For instance, my BMR at sedetary is: 1318 x 1.2 for a total calories per day of 1581.60 (If i eat 1200 calories a day I have created a weekly deficiet of approximately 2671 resulting in a little over a 1/2 lb weight loss a week (without any exercise).

If I am honest upfront with my BMR, and I stated that I do work out 5 times a week, I take my BMR of 1318 x 1.55 for a total calories per day of 2042.9, and I do not eat my exercise calories back because I am already eating them back on a daily basis. If I want to create the same deficiet of 2671 per week, I eat 1660 calories per day.

godricshollow

My best advice is: do what is best for YOU.

People here will argue back and forth about this subject and I will never understand it. I personally eat back my exercise calories because to maintain my weight, I have to eat 1860 calories perday. But because I have told MFP that I want to lose a pound a week, the site told me to eat -500 calories, so... 1360 calories per day. However, when I exercise I burn about 300-500 calories per session so on the days when I have a super high calorie burn such as 500, it would bring my calories down to 860 per day. A general rule of thumb is that people shouldn't eat less than 1200 calories perday, so I eat back a good portion of my calories.

It might not work for John Smith or Jane Doe, but it works for me. I continue to lose weight, I still gain all the benefits of exercise (being fit, increasing endurance, turning my flabby arms into prize winning guns etc etc) and the best part? I'm not hungry and it's something I can easily maintain because this is a lifelong change, not just a quick resrictive diet to get to a certain weight.

So in the end, do what is best for you. Eat them back, don't eat them back. It makes no difference, either way someone will tell you that you are wrong. :flowerforyou:

Matt_Wild

but somehow looking at your profile, I doubt that has ever been an issue for you

Please don't use the cop out that I don't know what you've been thro - I have been much fatter and known and helped people lose weight as they wanted too.

You are not surviving on 700 calories a day. You are ingesting 1200 calories a day. You have huge fat stores (not you personally, you as in people in general) which are stored for energy. You burn these fat stores, the 1200 calories simply provides your body enough calories to prevent the body the body lowering leptin levels and thus slowing the release of triiodothyronine into the body and so slowing the metabolism.

As for me, this is me 3-4 years back, I did hold quite a bit of fat.

missikay1970

but somehow looking at your profile, I doubt that has ever been an issue for you

Please don't use the cop out that I don't know what you've been thro - I have been much fatter and known and helped people lose weight as they wanted too.

You are not surviving on 700 calories a day. You are ingesting 1200 calories a day. You have huge fat stores (not you personally, you as in people in general) which are stored for energy. You burn these fat stores, the 1200 calories simply provides your body enough calories to prevent the body the body lowering leptin levels and thus slowing the release of triiodothyronine into the body and so slowing the metabolism.

As for me, this is me 3-4 years back, I did hold quite a bit of fat.

This is most peoples after photo,not before.

meli_ssa4

so basically, if you are suppose to eat back your exercise calories, then in reality you don't even have to go the gym as long as you only eat to your goal of 1200 calories you will still lose weight.

I don't eat all mine back because if I did, I would be eating all day long. Like yesterday I went to the gym and I did the 30day shred, burning upward of 766 calories. I then had to eat an additional 1280 calories. this is crazy considering I went to the gym at 3:30, there is no way I was eating another full 1280 calories after that time.

meggonkgonk

Ok the thing is to eat more than you burn so why is eating back calories included encouraged?! I have asked this question over and over but no one seems to know the answer. It just seems like you are canceling out the burn by eating the calories back. I just dont get it...DOES ANYONE UNDERSTAND THIS PHILOSOPHY??

So just a quick explination because I do understand why this would seem confusing. But it's not a philosophy, it's really, quite simply, the way MFP was designed. If you look at it in context of other calorie counting systems or diet/weightloss programs it's actually almost identical. Lemme explain...no there is too much, lemme sum up: (Sorry I couldn't resist the princess bride line)

MFP creates a daily calorie goal based on the factors filled out on your profile. They start by estimating how much you burn (using age/height/weight/activity level). Let's say it's 1800 for fictional example girl (FEG). Then you indicate how much you want to lose, let's say FEG wants to lose 1lbs a week- that's 3500 calories she has to burn off each week- or 500 calories per day. So MFP sets her goal at 1300 NET calories. Net because they intend for her to eat back anything additional she burns off - if you look at your profile you will see this is how MFP was designed. They simply factor the entire deficit before you do any working out.

If you were to use a typical diet program, they use both the exercise and the calorie intake to cut the same 500 calories. EG: most programs in Women's Health will give you a "customized" diet and workout regimin. The diet will be roughly 1500-1600 calories per day and the workout will have you burn 200-300 calories per day. So if FEG just follows this plan exactly, she will be cutting 200-300 calories out of her diet (from 1800 to 15-1600) AND from her workout (200-300 per). This still puts her NET calories - ones that go to her body's basic functioning- at 1300 calories. But if she skips a workout she may not think to cut her calories accordingly for the day, and thus may lose more slowly.

MFP is just an accounting system. Eating back exercise calories isn't a philosphy. It's the design of the program in which you are participating. Every thing is based on estimates, so you may need to adjust how many you eat back because the estimate may be a little inaccurate. But eating 1200 calories and burning off 500 and not eating them back is not only dangerous, it's stupid as well.

shivaslives

The explanations here are very valid for people that are trying to lose a significant amount of weight and body fat. Maintaining a consistent daily calorie deficit is the safest and most effective way to achieve those results. Most importantly, it works and works well and I say that from direct personal experience. You will have better success and avoid plateaus if you eat back your exercise calories.



Advice is worth exactly what you pay for it!

bobthesmogs

I agree you need to eat some of the calories back, especially if it was high burn excercise. But the thing I dont get is why MFP advises eating them all back when their estimates are I feel quite generous on calories burned and they dont take into account the 70-100 calories that a person would have burnt anyway had they just been sitting on the couch for the hour! I wear a heart rate monitor and always deduct the appropriate rate of cals that I would have burnt doing nothing.

meggonkgonk

so basically, if you are suppose to eat back your exercise calories, then in reality you don't even have to go the gym as long as you only eat to your goal of 1200 calories you will still lose weight.

I don't eat all mine back because if I did, I would be eating all day long. Like yesterday I went to the gym and I did the 30day shred, burning upward of 766 calories. I then had to eat an additional 1280 calories. this is crazy considering I went to the gym at 3:30, there is no way I was eating another full 1280 calories after that time.

Actually yes. The way MFP is designed, you will lose without the gym.

If you are going to work out in the afternoon, it's generally advised that you eat more earlier in the day. If you are going to do the 30 day shred at 3:30, you should be having a bigger breakfast and lunch so you don't eat all the calories after your work out.

rocketmouse

http://www.shouldieatmyexercisecalories.com/

This is exactly what I wanted it to be

meggonkgonk

I agree you need to eat some of the calories back, especially if it was high burn excercise. But the thing I dont get is why MFP advises eating them all back when their estimates are I feel quite generous on calories burned and they dont take into account the 70-100 calories that a person would have burnt anyway had they just been sitting on the couch for the hour! I wear a heart rate monitor and always deduct the appropriate rate of cals that I would have burnt doing nothing.

Many people just enter conservative exercise estimates based on trial and error (eg: when I do circuit training, I enter 20 min for every 30 min I exercise) or else buy an HRM to feel more accurate.

paigemarie93

My BMR is 1630 calories.
I set MFP to lose 2lbs a week, that set me at 1200 calories a day, which would only give me a 400cal deficit & about 1lb a week loss instead of 2lbs.
So I don't eat back my exercise calories & I rarely hit 1200 because if I do, I don't lose at all.
I ate back my exercise calories a few times & every time I gained weight.

Matt_Wild

But eating 1200 calories and burning off 500 and not eating them back is not only dangerous, it's stupid as well.

Really?

Could you explain to me in detail how it is dangerous? Which hormonal systems it will imbalance? What feedback loops it will cause danger in? Statements like this are wildly inaccurate and show a lack of understanding of the body.

meli_ssa4

My BMR is 1630 calories.
I set MFP to lose 2lbs a week, that set me at 1200 calories a day, which would only give me a 500cal deficit & about 1lb a week loss instead of 2lbs.
So I don't eat back my exercise calories & I rarely hit 1200 because if I do, I don't lose at all.
I ate back my exercise calories a few times & every time I gained weight.

This is the same as me, if I eat them back I always gain. but if I just stick to my goal of 1200, then I see a change

paigemarie93

But eating 1200 calories and burning off 500 and not eating them back is not only dangerous, it's stupid as well.

Really?

Could you explain to me in detail how it is dangerous? Which hormonal systems it will imbalance? What feedback loops it will cause danger in? Statements like this are wildly inaccurate and show a lack of understanding of the body.

It isn't dangerous at all, because you still have that base 1200 calories.

dg09

Our daily 'eating back exercise calories' thread, fun.

I'll throw out what works best for me, I don't eat them back.

Do what works for you. Find out what that is, and just do it.

Twins2007

No, I do not. I could understand a protein shake an maybe some fast acting carbs to help the body repair post workout but, eating back exercise calories? Je nais comprends pas?

Moi non plus...Ils disent que le deficit en calories est inclu avec les calories qu'on brulent dans l'equation.

Hope you do understand French

E