Clarity on the Eating back exercise calories controversy

kiachu

I'm new here but I've seen thread after thread regarding this and would like to understand why its such a hotbed topic.

I'm working off some assumptions here because I don't use MFP to track my food because its not flexible enough for me. But if I'm getting the gist of it MFP creates a caloric deficit based on goals set by the user (it seems to be 1200 for a lot of folks). This deficit is to lose weight though diet excluding physical activity. MFP then recommends you eat back you exercise calories because they've already set in your deficit via foods.

This seems logical to me. Is there confusion because MFP doesn't not explain the rationale behind this system? Again assuming, but if someone is eating 1200 and they are burning 400 calories a day they would only have 800 calories readily available to function on.

This is an extreme example, but this type of behavior in competitions circles, mostly amongst women, seems to have lead to a rash of women dealing with extreme exhaustion, hair loss, depression, hormonal imbalances, huge rebounds (weight gain), cycles of binging, and metabolic damage. From what I understand stored fat is the last thing your body wants to access and simple carbohydrates is the first, so if your stressing it via physical demands and not meeting its need nutritionally your cortisol (stress hormone) levels will increase and cause your body hold tight to fat storage and even try to store more (because it thinks there is some sort of trouble coming and get into survival mode), but also start eating into the muscle.

4schrocks

Bump. Very interesting topic.

astraldream

I have no understanding on all the calorie intake deficit malarkey but i know i have consistently lost 2lb a week my exercising and not eating back. I may somedays go slightly over my normal allowance by 50-100 calories but my exercise generally adds 700 or more per day.

nowakkk

This has been me for the last 6 months I was steadily losing the weight about 1 lb per week eating the minimum of 1,200 calories and burning about 500 calories per day through exercise. Like I said, it worked for the first 25 lbs, but now, I've seen a huge plateau the last month-2 months. Even though I'm eating clean and exercising daily.

I'm trying to find the right way to add back my exercise calories while still maintaining a NET of 1,200 and also upping my protein intake. I've got the mind set though that the scale will start to rise by eating 1,600 calories now versus the normal 1,200 - even though I'm continuing to burn 500-700 calories in the gym. (Working on this way of thinking).

Could anybody share their experience of adding back exercise calories? Since I've been in a extreme deficit for so long is my metabolism too screwed up to shed those last 15 lbs? Will I see a rise in the scale?

Thanks.

astraldream

i have filled out my food diary for the day and here is what i have left.

Totals 1,713 325 24 49 8 33
Your Daily Goal 3,065 420 102 114 35 35
Remaining 1,352 95 78 65 27 2
Calories Carbs Fat Protein Sat Fat Fiber

i am not under eating. and if i was to eat all 1,352 calories i had left im sure i would be sick.

WendyTerry420

I think the confusion is because some people lack math skills. I was a little confused about it because I've never heard the phrase "eating back your exercise" before. But once I learned my BMR and TDEE and did the math, it made perfect sense.

nowakkk

I think my math skills are fine.

yarwell

Some of the confusion may arise from the lack of understanding, yes. The fact that the weight loss is based on no exercise and remains present as a deficit when exercise increases the target food intake is lost on many.

Some people wish to use exercise to create a bonus of a bigger deficit and others to create a bonus of more food to eat, so there are conflicting needs / approaches.

kehuizenga

My thoughts are this: I'm not going to eat when I am not hungry. I think the signals from my body are a lot more accurate than what people on MFP message boards tell me.

Also, I feel that MFP way overestimates calories burned through exercise. I usually eat back maybe 100-200 of my exercise calories, but that's it.

nowakkk

Lack of understanding is probably a better way to put it. Listening to your body is important. I just want to make sure I'm doing this in the healthiest way possible. If it isn't recommended to have your NET below 1200, then I want to make sure I'm following this.

chrisyoung0422

I thought this was a massive topic yesterday? Did you search this out before posting again? People get pretty flametastic when it comes to the eating back of cals.

erickirb

yup if you use MFP's intake you must eat them back to maintain your daily deficit to lose your goal amount of weight/week.
If you are using a different caloric intake you may not need to eat them, depending on what was included in your activity level.

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 1700 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 11,900 (1700*7) almost the same number of cals for the week (250 dif). 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 MFPers 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 1700/day above.

mamasmaltz3

I'm new here but I've seen thread after thread regarding this and would like to understand why its such a hotbed topic.

I'm working off some assumptions here because I don't use MFP to track my food because its not flexible enough for me. But if I'm getting the gist of it MFP creates a caloric deficit based on goals set by the user (it seems to be 1200 for a lot of folks). This deficit is to lose weight though diet excluding physical activity. MFP then recommends you eat back you exercise calories because they've already set in your deficit via foods.

This seems logical to me. Is there confusion because MFP doesn't not explain the rationale behind this system? Again assuming, but if someone is eating 1200 and they are burning 400 calories a day they would only have 800 calories readily available to function on.


This is an extreme example, but this type of behavior in competitions circles, mostly amongst women, seems to have lead to a rash of women dealing with extreme exhaustion, hair loss, depression, hormonal imbalances, huge rebounds (weight gain), cycles of binging, and metabolic damage. From what I understand stored fat is the last thing your body wants to access and simple carbohydrates is the first, so if your stressing it via physical demands and not meeting its need nutritionally your cortisol (stress hormone) levels will increase and cause your body hold tight to fat storage and even try to store more (because it thinks there is some sort of trouble coming and get into survival mode), but also start eating into the muscle.

kiachu,, you look like you know how to minimize body fat and build muscle. What would happen to your muscle on a net calorie intake of 800?

mynameiscarrie

Lack of understanding is probably a better way to put it. Listening to your body is important. I just want to make sure I'm doing this in the healthiest way possible. If it isn't recommended to have your NET below 1200, then I want to make sure I'm following this.

this. sometimes i eat back exercise calories, sometimes i dont, but i always make sure to try to net 1200. my goal is set for 1400 a day so i'm not eat them all back sometimes, but as of recently there are very few days i net less than 1200. you need that much. yeah, you can lose more by netting below that, but it will not last and you'll plateau faster and longer. long run, netting around 1200 is better. I say around 1200 because it's an average for most people

erickirb

My thoughts are this: I'm not going to eat when I am not hungry. I think the signals from my body are a lot more accurate than what people on MFP message boards tell me.

Also, I feel that MFP way overestimates calories burned through exercise. I usually eat back maybe 100-200 of my exercise calories, but that's it.

actually signals from the body are not the best indication, if they were no one would have gotten fat in the first place. A lot of times thirst is mistaken as hunger, or if you under eat for a while your body can stop sending hungry signals to your brain, even though you need the nutrition/calories.

erickirb

Lack of understanding is probably a better way to put it. Listening to your body is important. I just want to make sure I'm doing this in the healthiest way possible. If it isn't recommended to have your NET below 1200, then I want to make sure I'm following this.

this. sometimes i eat back exercise calories, sometimes i dont, but i always make sure to try to net 1200. my goal is set for 1400 a day so i'm not eat them all back sometimes, but as of recently there are very few days i net less than 1200. you need that much. yeah, you can lose more by netting below that, but it will not last and you'll plateau faster and longer. long run, netting around 1200 is better. I say around 1200 because it's an average for most people

with so little to lose I would suggest not netting below 1400 cals, try eating 1600-1800/day instead. The less you have to lose the smaller your deficit should be to avoid losing muscle mass instead of fat.

erickirb

I'm new here but I've seen thread after thread regarding this and would like to understand why its such a hotbed topic.

I'm working off some assumptions here because I don't use MFP to track my food because its not flexible enough for me. But if I'm getting the gist of it MFP creates a caloric deficit based on goals set by the user (it seems to be 1200 for a lot of folks). This deficit is to lose weight though diet excluding physical activity. MFP then recommends you eat back you exercise calories because they've already set in your deficit via foods.

This seems logical to me. Is there confusion because MFP doesn't not explain the rationale behind this system? Again assuming, but if someone is eating 1200 and they are burning 400 calories a day they would only have 800 calories readily available to function on.


This is an extreme example, but this type of behavior in competitions circles, mostly amongst women, seems to have lead to a rash of women dealing with extreme exhaustion, hair loss, depression, hormonal imbalances, huge rebounds (weight gain), cycles of binging, and metabolic damage. From what I understand stored fat is the last thing your body wants to access and simple carbohydrates is the first, so if your stressing it via physical demands and not meeting its need nutritionally your cortisol (stress hormone) levels will increase and cause your body hold tight to fat storage and even try to store more (because it thinks there is some sort of trouble coming and get into survival mode), but also start eating into the muscle.

kiachu,, you look like you know how to minimize body fat and build muscle. What would happen to your muscle on a net calorie intake of 800?

depends on how much you have to lose. if you have 200+ lbs to go you should be okay (maybe lack of energy though) but the less you have to lose the closer to your maintenance you should be eating or the % muscle vs. fat loss will increase as your fat stores decrease.

NoxDineen

The 2 people who are ripped advocate eating back exercise calories. Just sayin' guys. They seem to know what they're talking about.

I'm not ripped by any stretch, but I'm 118 lbs and have around 17% body fat, I eat 'em back.

Crystal0827

I started at 1200 cals and not eating back exercise calories back. I was consistently losing weight. I got sick a few times and figures I needed to supply my body with more nutrients. So I upped my calories to 1500-1600. I didn't lose a thing. After 3 weeks I lost a pound and then didn't lose again. 2 weeks ago I went back down to 1200 and not eating exercise calories back. Last week I l lost a little over a pound and this week I lost 2 pounds. I don't feel sick, I am not tired. I have two desk jobs and sit all day. I go to the gym about 3-4 days a week. On the weekends I am not as strict about what I eat. I call those my relax days. sometimes I consume 2000 calories a day sometimes it is 1600. It worked for the 1st 4-5 months and it seems to be working again so I am going to keep going with it. PLUS if I go over some times every now and then I don't stress too much because I know I have "room" for it.

If I began to notice physical signs of illness I will consult a doctor but I think this is what works for me.

psuLemon

My thoughts are this: I'm not going to eat when I am not hungry. I think the signals from my body are a lot more accurate than what people on MFP message boards tell me.

Also, I feel that MFP way overestimates calories burned through exercise. I usually eat back maybe 100-200 of my exercise calories, but that's it.

This isnt always true. Hunger signals can be suppressed by on food intake or frequency of meals. For example, look at people who do interim fasting; many of thrm fast for 16-20 hours and then consume 2000-3000 calories in a small time window. When you first start IF you are hungry like crazy but over a small time window (about 2 weeks) your body will adapt and the hunger pangs will disappear.

Another thing to consider is the body doesnt understand or know how many calories you consume but rather the quantity of food. Means you can eat a 9oz steak and be full (240 calories) by a bbq hamburger of equivalent size but 4 x the calories.

In terms of the way mfp is designed, as noted it have the deficit built in. Creating a larger deficit (especially when you are in a normal range) can cause you to lose the wrong kind of weight (lean body mass loss). When you under eating, your metabolic rate will decrease but your body will also look for other places to find energy. Once the energy is depleted from your fate stores, the next area it looks is lean body mass. It does this by converting the amino acids in your muscles into energy. How do you know if this is happening, you can measure your weight and body fat concurrently to see if you are losing lbm or fat.

Ideally most people want fat loss. This is what will give a body a defined tight look or a skinny fat look. As i always say, weiggt loss makes you look good in clothes but fat loss makes you look good naked. Also prolonged suppression of calories make you more susceptible to plateaus (personal experience and those of others). This is why many of us use techniques such as including exercise as part of your tdee and cutting 20% or telling people to eat at their maintenance calories for two weeks to release/prevent the release of cortisol... the chemical that can preserve body fat. Keep in mind that a calorie deficit is stress and we always hear stress can prevent weight loss (this is due to cortisol).

mynameiscarrie

Lack of understanding is probably a better way to put it. Listening to your body is important. I just want to make sure I'm doing this in the healthiest way possible. If it isn't recommended to have your NET below 1200, then I want to make sure I'm following this.

this. sometimes i eat back exercise calories, sometimes i dont, but i always make sure to try to net 1200. my goal is set for 1400 a day so i'm not eat them all back sometimes, but as of recently there are very few days i net less than 1200. you need that much. yeah, you can lose more by netting below that, but it will not last and you'll plateau faster and longer. long run, netting around 1200 is better. I say around 1200 because it's an average for most people

with so little to lose I would suggest not netting below 1400 cals, try eating 1600-1800/day instead. The less you have to lose the smaller your deficit should be to avoid losing muscle mass instead of fat.

I'm just now hitting my lower amounts...again lol... i just increased to 1400 a couple weeks ago.