Eating exercise cals and Eat More to Lose - same thing?
Options
Replies
-
After reading the various threads on eating more and eating back your exercise calories, I decided to give it a try. But I am wondering if those two concepts are two different concepts, or one in the same? I know there is a group on here called Eat More to Lose. Is that different from simply eating back your exercise calories? I pretty much have my calories set at what I've always had them set at (1300), but now am eating back my exercise calories. Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?
They are generally the same idea. Eating more helps fuel your workouts and much more provides your body with the necessary calories it needs to function. I started out by eating back all my exercise calories, and then I gradually increased my overall intake as well. It is not easy for a lot of people to cross the mental barrier that eating less = losing more, so it is good to take it step by step.
No, they are fundamentally different, even if they seem similar on the surface.
Yes, both end up having you eat more, but the reasoning is different.
How so?0 -
After reading the various threads on eating more and eating back your exercise calories, I decided to give it a try. But I am wondering if those two concepts are two different concepts, or one in the same? I know there is a group on here called Eat More to Lose. Is that different from simply eating back your exercise calories? I pretty much have my calories set at what I've always had them set at (1300), but now am eating back my exercise calories. Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?
They are generally the same idea. Eating more helps fuel your workouts and much more provides your body with the necessary calories it needs to function. I started out by eating back all my exercise calories, and then I gradually increased my overall intake as well. It is not easy for a lot of people to cross the mental barrier that eating less = losing more, so it is good to take it step by step.
No, they are fundamentally different, even if they seem similar on the surface.
Yes, both end up having you eat more, but the reasoning is different.
How so?Generally speaking:
Eat more to lose means netting a high number of cals to get closer to your TDEE. The idea is that your body functions better with more fuel, so while you still need to be at a deficit to lose, the smaller the deficit is the more efficiently your body will function. Ultimately everyone has a caloric "sweet spot" they need to find... the number of cals you need to net for your body to feel good, work well, and still lose weight. The eat more to lose crowd will say that sweet spot is higher than you think it is.
Eating back exercise cals is completely different. We've all used some sort of formula to calculate/estimate the number of cals we need to eat to hit our weight loss/gain goals. In most cases, that formula takes into consideration your lifestyle/activity level (i.e. the more active you are on a day-to-day basis, the more cals you need). If you factor your exercise into your activity level, then your exercise cals are accounted for in the formula, and you DO NOT need to eat them back. If you didn't factor them in (as many don't), then you should be eating back most of them.
Eating more to lose is about lessening your deficit to lose more weight.
Eating back exercise cals is about meeting your daily caloric need, and to a lesser extent, what that caloric need is based on.
.0 -
The TDEE Table I included factors in your activity level. If you use the table NOBODY has to factor them in was my point.
The calorie intake is based on BMR and TDEE. Which calculates your activity level. So there is no need to eat back your calories burned unless the burn takes you below your BMR..
Probably - they're the "exercise loads so you can eat a lot" crowd. So they would probably have you exercise even more and eat ore to sustain the same deficit.Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?
Wrong.
You do need to eat them back if you didn't factor them into your activity level. Not everyone does. If you do, then you are correct, but A LOT of people don't.0 -
The TDEE Table I included factors in your activity level. If you use the table NOBODY has to factor them in was my point.
The calorie intake is based on BMR and TDEE. Which calculates your activity level. So there is no need to eat back your calories burned unless the burn takes you below your BMR..
Probably - they're the "exercise loads so you can eat a lot" crowd. So they would probably have you exercise even more and eat ore to sustain the same deficit.Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?
Wrong.
You do need to eat them back if you didn't factor them into your activity level. Not everyone does. If you do, then you are correct, but A LOT of people don't.
you're missing the point.0 -
If you look at the group, you should be able to have most of your questions answered. Anewlucia, 31proverbs are extremely knowledgable. There are quite a few other ladies there with a lot of good info as well ) I Just cant think of all the names right now.
This^^^^ and they could appear to be the same thing until you read about each. I would advise you check out the group and read up so you can make an informed decision on which one you want to use in your particular situation.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/forums/show/3834-eat-more-to-weigh-less0 -
After reading the various threads on eating more and eating back your exercise calories, I decided to give it a try. But I am wondering if those two concepts are two different concepts, or one in the same? I know there is a group on here called Eat More to Lose. Is that different from simply eating back your exercise calories? I pretty much have my calories set at what I've always had them set at (1300), but now am eating back my exercise calories. Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?
They are generally the same idea. Eating more helps fuel your workouts and much more provides your body with the necessary calories it needs to function. I started out by eating back all my exercise calories, and then I gradually increased my overall intake as well. It is not easy for a lot of people to cross the mental barrier that eating less = losing more, so it is good to take it step by step.
No, they are fundamentally different, even if they seem similar on the surface.
Yes, both end up having you eat more, but the reasoning is different.
Isn't that a bit like saying running to lose weight and running to improve cardio-vascular health are fundamentally different? It's all still running.0 -
Eating back exercise cals is completely different. We've all used some sort of formula to calculate/estimate the number of cals we need to eat to hit our weight loss/gain goals. In most cases, that formula takes into consideration your lifestyle/activity level (i.e. the more active you are on a day-to-day basis, the more cals you need). If you factor your exercise into your activity level, then your exercise cals are accounted for in the formula, and you DO NOT need to eat them back. If you didn't factor them in (as many don't), then you should be eating back most of them.Eating more to lose is about lessening your deficit to lose more weight.
Eating back exercise cals is about meeting your daily caloric need, and to a lesser extent, what that caloric need is based on.
.
You don't have to be so rude to everyone, especially when they are trying to advocate the same thing as you. I guess I didn't realize I was dealing with a genius. Honestly, I still think they are similar, and you're getting all crazy about semantics.
OP. Check out the eat more to weigh less group. Enough said.0 -
After reading the various threads on eating more and eating back your exercise calories, I decided to give it a try. But I am wondering if those two concepts are two different concepts, or one in the same? I know there is a group on here called Eat More to Lose. Is that different from simply eating back your exercise calories? I pretty much have my calories set at what I've always had them set at (1300), but now am eating back my exercise calories. Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?
They are generally the same idea. Eating more helps fuel your workouts and much more provides your body with the necessary calories it needs to function. I started out by eating back all my exercise calories, and then I gradually increased my overall intake as well. It is not easy for a lot of people to cross the mental barrier that eating less = losing more, so it is good to take it step by step.
No, they are fundamentally different, even if they seem similar on the surface.
Yes, both end up having you eat more, but the reasoning is different.
Isn't that a bit like saying running to lose weight and running to improve cardio-vascular health are fundamentally different? It's all still running.
No, it's not. Weight loss and cardiovascular health are completely different issues. Can they sometimes overlap? Sure. Do they necessarily overlap? No.
Running is the method. Weight loss and/or improved cardiovascular health are the results. As is sweating. You wouldn't say sweating and cardiovascular health are the same thing, would you?0 -
How am I being rude? Honestly... I'm not trying to be, and if I am I apologize, I'm just trying to share information is the most accurate and straight forward way possible.You don't have to be so rude to everyone
talk about being rude...I guess I didn't realize I was dealing with a genius.
Yes, they are similar. But semantics do matter. When someone tries something new with their diet/exercise plan and it does or doesn't work, it's important to understand the semantics so they can understand WHY it did or didn't work. If it didn't work there is a better understanding of what/why they did what they did and they can't make better decisions moving forward. Having a more thorough understanding also makes threads like these more helpful to others, rather than throwing around basically useless advice because "it worked for me" (not saying you did that).Honestly, I still think they are similar, and you're getting all crazy about semantics.0 -
After reading the various threads on eating more and eating back your exercise calories, I decided to give it a try. But I am wondering if those two concepts are two different concepts, or one in the same? I know there is a group on here called Eat More to Lose. Is that different from simply eating back your exercise calories? I pretty much have my calories set at what I've always had them set at (1300), but now am eating back my exercise calories. Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?
They are generally the same idea. Eating more helps fuel your workouts and much more provides your body with the necessary calories it needs to function. I started out by eating back all my exercise calories, and then I gradually increased my overall intake as well. It is not easy for a lot of people to cross the mental barrier that eating less = losing more, so it is good to take it step by step.
No, they are fundamentally different, even if they seem similar on the surface.
Yes, both end up having you eat more, but the reasoning is different.
Isn't that a bit like saying running to lose weight and running to improve cardio-vascular health are fundamentally different? It's all still running.
No, it's not. Weight loss and cardiovascular health are completely different issues. Can they sometimes overlap? Sure. Do they necessarily overlap? No.
Running is the method. Weight loss and/or improved cardiovascular health are the results. As is sweating. You wouldn't say sweating and cardiovascular health are the same thing, would you?
But when it comes to eating more to lose weight, both the method and the outcome are the same, whether you are eating back exercise calories or eating to be above BMR. So I don't see why how the reasoning behind eating more make them fundamentally different? Whichever reason you give, you are still eating to fuel your body.0 -
After reading the various threads on eating more and eating back your exercise calories, I decided to give it a try. But I am wondering if those two concepts are two different concepts, or one in the same? I know there is a group on here called Eat More to Lose. Is that different from simply eating back your exercise calories? I pretty much have my calories set at what I've always had them set at (1300), but now am eating back my exercise calories. Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?
They are generally the same idea. Eating more helps fuel your workouts and much more provides your body with the necessary calories it needs to function. I started out by eating back all my exercise calories, and then I gradually increased my overall intake as well. It is not easy for a lot of people to cross the mental barrier that eating less = losing more, so it is good to take it step by step.
No, they are fundamentally different, even if they seem similar on the surface.
Yes, both end up having you eat more, but the reasoning is different.
Isn't that a bit like saying running to lose weight and running to improve cardio-vascular health are fundamentally different? It's all still running.
No, it's not. Weight loss and cardiovascular health are completely different issues. Can they sometimes overlap? Sure. Do they necessarily overlap? No.
Running is the method. Weight loss and/or improved cardiovascular health are the results. As is sweating. You wouldn't say sweating and cardiovascular health are the same thing, would you?
But when it comes to eating more to lose weight, both the method and the outcome are the same, whether you are eating back exercise calories or eating to be above BMR. So I don't see why how the reasoning behind eating more make them fundamentally different? Whichever reason you give, you are still eating to fuel your body.
Take this example...
Someone has a TDEE of 2500, they are eating at 1500 to lose and not eating back exercise cals, so they are netting, let's say... 1200.
Having them eat back their exercise cals does increase their net number. But it's still only the the original 1500 cals.
Eating more to lose would say that the 1500 is not enough in the first place, that they should be at 2000 daily.
They are fundamentally different. One says 1500 cals is good, just make sure you are netting 1500. The other says 1500 is not enough.
Are both increase net cals? Yes... but the why is different.0 -
After reading the various threads on eating more and eating back your exercise calories, I decided to give it a try. But I am wondering if those two concepts are two different concepts, or one in the same? I know there is a group on here called Eat More to Lose. Is that different from simply eating back your exercise calories? I pretty much have my calories set at what I've always had them set at (1300), but now am eating back my exercise calories. Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?
They are generally the same idea. Eating more helps fuel your workouts and much more provides your body with the necessary calories it needs to function. I started out by eating back all my exercise calories, and then I gradually increased my overall intake as well. It is not easy for a lot of people to cross the mental barrier that eating less = losing more, so it is good to take it step by step.
No, they are fundamentally different, even if they seem similar on the surface.
Yes, both end up having you eat more, but the reasoning is different.
Isn't that a bit like saying running to lose weight and running to improve cardio-vascular health are fundamentally different? It's all still running.
No, it's not. Weight loss and cardiovascular health are completely different issues. Can they sometimes overlap? Sure. Do they necessarily overlap? No.
Running is the method. Weight loss and/or improved cardiovascular health are the results. As is sweating. You wouldn't say sweating and cardiovascular health are the same thing, would you?
But when it comes to eating more to lose weight, both the method and the outcome are the same, whether you are eating back exercise calories or eating to be above BMR. So I don't see why how the reasoning behind eating more make them fundamentally different? Whichever reason you give, you are still eating to fuel your body.
Take this example...
Someone has a TDEE of 2500, they are eating at 1500 to lose and not eating back exercise cals, so they are netting, let's say... 1200.
Having them eat back their exercise cals does increase their net number. But it's still only the the original 1500 cals.
Eating more to lose would say that the 1500 is not enough in the first place, that they should be at 2000 daily.
They are fundamentally different. One says 1500 cals is good, just make sure you are netting 1500. The other says 1500 is not enough.
Are both increase net cals? Yes... but the why is different.
Ah, but it's not the why that makes the difference. It's the calculation. Which makes more sense. Sometimes the 'why' will make no difference, and sometimes it will, depending on the numbers in the equation.
For example, on days I don't exercise my TDEE is 1677 (sedentary). So, on those days to eat TDEE - 500 I'd need to eat less than 1200 per day, which is less than the MFP recommendation.0 -
Do most people who are just eating back exercise calories even know their TDEE or BMR? Or are they just going off of what MFP is telling them?
I only learned mine when I started eating more to weigh less. Thats when I got all the info about TDEE and such. I always ate back my exercise calories but didnt realize that I could be eating more, still losing and becoming healthier.
Knowledge is one of the most important things to have to make an informed decision.0 -
Checking it out now. There are so many conflicting opinions it gets confusing! Thanks for the input!
Hi. I'm part of the EMTWL group. Feel free to post a bit and ask questions. It's one thing to read through the information, ask clarifying questions, and decide it's not something you want to try. That's obviously an informed decision. I would recommend anyone reading this thread to do the same if there's true interest in learning about EMTWL.
That being said, it's irritating that people who clearly don't understand the concepts of EMTWL are misinforming others. Grrr!0 -
Do most people who are just eating back exercise calories even know their TDEE or BMR? Or are they just going off of what MFP is telling them?
I only learned mine when I started eating more to weigh less. Thats when I got all the info about TDEE and such. I always ate back my exercise calories but didnt realize that I could be eating more, still losing and becoming healthier.
Knowledge is one of the most important things to have to make an informed decision.
I would guess that very few know their true BMR or TDEE. Judging by the posts I've seen, I think most just go by the online calculators.0 -
Curious to read more about this...0
-
It's a shame that people respond to these threads without having the foggiest idea what they are talking about.
There are so many different ways to look at this that it's kind of hard to post it all here.
Mainly, you could use EMTLM and use sedentary, then, eat back your exercise.
You could just set your TDEE and a 15% cut, and just eat that and work out at whatever level you set.
Or, you could just use MFP, which for me turned out the same as both above scenarios.
So, I've now come full circle and am saying that it doesn't matter. All work and are probably about the same if youre' doing it right.
to answer the question that comes up over and over and over again about why you eat your exercise calories...the reason is because MFP has you at a defecit already. When you exercise, you can create too much of a deficit that is unhealthy for you. So, you eat back some por all to ensure the deficit stays around the same amoutn you intended. If you don't exercise, you still eat whatever your cals are set and you will still lose.0 -
Probably - they're the "exercise loads so you can eat a lot" crowd. So they would probably have you exercise even more and eat ore to sustain the same deficit.Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?
So wrong!
If you have your calories set at your BMR then I say eat back your exercise calories. If you eat you TDEE then no, you do not have to eat back exersice calories because they are already calculated in. It works out to be about the same though so how ever you decide to do it will be fine!
http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
This helped me alot!0 -
Probably - they're the "exercise loads so you can eat a lot" crowd. So they would probably have you exercise even more and eat ore to sustain the same deficit.Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?
So wrong!
If you have your calories set at your BMR then I say eat back your exercise calories. If you eat you TDEE then no, you do not have to eat back exersice calories because they are already calculated in. It works out to be about the same though so how ever you decide to do it will be fine!
http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
This helped me alot!
YOU DO NTO SET YOUR CALS AT BMR. You set them at TDEE with sedentary lifestyle, then you can eat back calories. Or, if you just want a constant calorie amount, just firgure out your TDEE, cut about 15% off it, and eat that consistently and do your exercises as planned. You will lose weight either way.0 -
After reading the various threads on eating more and eating back your exercise calories, I decided to give it a try. But I am wondering if those two concepts are two different concepts, or one in the same? I know there is a group on here called Eat More to Lose. Is that different from simply eating back your exercise calories? I pretty much have my calories set at what I've always had them set at (1300), but now am eating back my exercise calories. Would the Eat More to Lose crowd say I should up the calories as well?
They are generally the same idea. Eating more helps fuel your workouts and much more provides your body with the necessary calories it needs to function. I started out by eating back all my exercise calories, and then I gradually increased my overall intake as well. It is not easy for a lot of people to cross the mental barrier that eating less = losing more, so it is good to take it step by step.
No, they are fundamentally different, even if they seem similar on the surface.
Yes, both end up having you eat more, but the reasoning is different.
Isn't that a bit like saying running to lose weight and running to improve cardio-vascular health are fundamentally different? It's all still running.
No, it's not. Weight loss and cardiovascular health are completely different issues. Can they sometimes overlap? Sure. Do they necessarily overlap? No.
Running is the method. Weight loss and/or improved cardiovascular health are the results. As is sweating. You wouldn't say sweating and cardiovascular health are the same thing, would you?
But when it comes to eating more to lose weight, both the method and the outcome are the same, whether you are eating back exercise calories or eating to be above BMR. So I don't see why how the reasoning behind eating more make them fundamentally different? Whichever reason you give, you are still eating to fuel your body.
Take this example...
Someone has a TDEE of 2500, they are eating at 1500 to lose and not eating back exercise cals, so they are netting, let's say... 1200.
Having them eat back their exercise cals does increase their net number. But it's still only the the original 1500 cals.
Eating more to lose would say that the 1500 is not enough in the first place, that they should be at 2000 daily.
They are fundamentally different. One says 1500 cals is good, just make sure you are netting 1500. The other says 1500 is not enough.
Are both increase net cals? Yes... but the why is different.
Ah, but it's not the why that makes the difference. It's the calculation. Which makes more sense. Sometimes the 'why' will make no difference, and sometimes it will, depending on the numbers in the equation.
For example, on days I don't exercise my TDEE is 1677 (sedentary). So, on those days to eat TDEE - 500 I'd need to eat less than 1200 per day, which is less than the MFP recommendation.
Ultimately yes... it all comes down to knowing what you are calculating, why you are calculating it, and how it's being calculated.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 982 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions