Eating back your calories rant.

SPNLuver83

You didn't lose because you were over eating because your estimated calories were higher than they were.

You can't throw everyone into the same box.

I have a friend that I started on the eat more to weigh less plan. She's lost 5 lbs in 2 weeks and one pant size.

So please, you telling everyone not to do something that has science behind it is just as bad as people's remarks to you.

MoreBean13

Whew! There's a lot of bad advice in this thread. There's a lot of bad advice out there in general, but I would encourage any new users to step away from this thread and look for people on here who have been successful in losing and maintaining their weight loss, and get advice from those people. Then take that advice with healthy skepticism and research for yourself what you are being advised to do. Many of the successful MFP old-timers have a pay-it-forward attitude and are happy to share tips that helped them. Newcomers with a chip on their shoulder are not the best source for tips on successful weight loss strategies.

Healthy_4_Life2

I tried the eat more lose weight but it backed fired on me and I gained weight. So now, am eating 1400-1500 regardless of my workout. This is working for me now! I eat when am hungry and don't if am not.

miadhail

SMH

The question of whether or not to "eat back exercise" calories depends on how you do the accounting. If you're eating TDEE-deifict (which is the common/standard way the non-MFP world does it, and more than likely what your trainer had in mind for you), then no, you don't eat them back. If you're using the MFP numbers, where exercise is factored out of the equation, then you eat them back to keep the deficit steady.

It just comes down to implementing a healthy calorie deficit. You can do the "bookkeeping" however is most convenient for you.

Actually the more I think about it, the more I think MFP should just surrender and switch the whole system over to TDEE-based. The "eating back calories" concept is just a source of too much confusion for many people and leads to misguided threads like these.

this. TDEE system and the "MFP" system is different. When you take out the factors that makes MFP, MFP. it is actually the same. Following TDEE, you eat at that particular recommended calorie intake for weight loss, whether you exercise or not (you don't eat back the exercise cals). For MFP, they have a formula that takes exercising into account so that you actually exercise and feel like you achieved something (besides a fit body lol) so that you aren't just limiting cals for dieting, but also toning up and being healthy overall with exercise. According to TDEE I should be eating 1400-1500 each day. Following MFP, i am on a 1200 cal diet, and since I exercise and eat exercise cals back, my gross intake would be around 1300-1500. So really, the difference is almost negligible. Nevertheless, MFP helps you see what you are eating etc, and gives you a choice what you want to do about it. People choose what works for them, and since we are all different, what works for them, may not work for you.

kennethmgreen

SMH

Smell your hand? That's just rude!

The question of whether or not to "eat back exercise" calories depends on how you do the accounting. If you're eating TDEE-deifict (which is the common/standard way the non-MFP world does it, and more than likely what your trainer had in mind for you), then no, you don't eat them back. If you're using the MFP numbers, where exercise is factored out of the equation, then you eat them back to keep the deficit steady.

Correct. Unfortunately, the vast majority of diet plans factor in exercise. Every day, people miss that detail and come charging into these threads proclaiming what their doctor, or trainer, or candlestick maker told them. And they aren't wrong, the advice givers. They are - like anyone unfamiliar with MFP's methodology of factoring out exercise - assuming exercise calorie burn into the planned calorie intake. So of course, they exclaim, "That's crazy! Why would you eat your exercise calories back??!?" And then the person seeking advice probably stops listening, or maybe stops comprehending, or even stops thinking because I bet the very next thing some of those advice givers say would help clear up confusion among the advice seekers. I bet some of those advice givers follow "Why would you eat your exercise calories back?" with something like: "That would be like counting them twice."

And the advice seeker misses this. The advice seeker doesn't stop to think why that would seem wrong to count exercise calories twice. Thinking about that would lead to ... oh yes! ... but of course! MFP, in how it calculates a deficit simply doesn't include the deficit from exercise.

It just comes down to implementing a healthy calorie deficit. You can do the "bookkeeping" however is most convenient for you.

I love the metaphor of bookkeeping for this. It fits perfectly. Many other diet plans include the exercise deficit - mostly because it's easier for people (less precise, still effective) and more consistent, theoretically. It's more week-focused that way, instead of daily-focused like MFP. But it's all just estimated numbers arriving at the same goal: a calorie deficit. It's funny to me reading people's reactions to the idea of eating exercise calories back as some kind of bad/crazy/wrong thing. OF COURSE if you are inaccurately estimating calories (in or out), you can mess up the results. But the MFP method of "eating exercise calories back" isn't really any different than the other diet methods - those "eat exercise calories back" too. They just do it in advance, planning for it by including the exercise in the calorie goal.

Actually the more I think about it, the more I think MFP should just surrender and switch the whole system over to TDEE-based. The "eating back calories" concept is just a source of too much confusion for many people and leads to misguided threads like these.

I hope not. I like being able to see where I'm at on days I don't exercise. The MFP method (and "eat your exercise calories back *IS* the MFP method - it's how MFP is designed) gives me a more accurate picture of my calories, it helps me see the relationship of food to energy/fuel, and pushes me to exercise more. Not just to eat more, but because I can see the relationship of calories to fuel.

Ouckat2

Starvation Mode: Dispelling the Myths If you've been on a diet, you've surely heard about it. The dreaded starvation mode. How many people have said to you, "be careful not to dip below 1200 calories. Your body will go into starvation mode and you'll gain weight." Or, what about, "Oh, you're not eating enough, that's why you're not losing weight. Your body is in starvation mode." A frightful sounding thing indeed. It seems like a dieter just can't win. If they eat too much, they won't lose weight. If they eat too little, they won't lose weight. Can all this really be true? The simple answer is no. Starvation mode has been embellished so much that it's almost a complete lie at this point. So what is starvation mode really? Starvation mode, more formally known as famine response, is part of your body's survival mechanism. When you aren't getting a sufficient amount of calories to run your body, your body does indeed fall into famine response, because normally, when one isn't eating, it's because there is nothing to eat. Starvation mode slows down the body's metabolism to try and save as much energy as it can. It also breaks down muscle, but I'll go into that a bit later. So, yes, famine response, or starvation mode, does slow down your metabolism and does break down muscle, but that's where the truth ends and the embellishment begins. Firstly, starvation mode is not something that kicks in automatically. If you skip a day of eating, your body is not going to freak out and drop your metabolism to a slow crawl. Starvation mode kicks in after continuous fasting or severe calorie restriction, usually longer than a week, but at least 3 days. If you've fasted, or restricted calories severely, you know the feelings of hunger pangs and how horrible they were. That's your body saying, "Eat. I need fuel." Since your body is telling you to eat, it believes there is still food to be eaten, so no starvation mode yet. When the hunger subsides, usually after about 3 to 5 days, your body has decided to there must not be food and uses alternative energy sources. This is a good indication that starvation mode is not far away. People also believe that starvation mode will make you gain weight. This is essentially false. Starvation mode does slow down the metabolism, but if you are eating so little that starvation mode has set in, you are not going to gain weight. The percentage by which the metabolism slows down, which can be as much as 40 percent, does not overshadow the calorie deficit. All it means is that, if you are eating 500 calories a day, and you are supposed to get 2000, you should lose 3 pounds a week with your metabolism running normally. Let's say your metabolism dropped 30 percent. You would have a basal metabolic rate of 1400 calories a day instead, and so you would lose 1.8 pounds a week instead. Considerably fewer amounts of weight, but you would still lose weight. You can not gain weight by taking in fewer calories a day. It does not make sense scientifically, especially if you understand physics. Let's get back to the muscle loss, because that is concerning to most people. Starvation mode does cause muscle loss, partially because it is getting rid of something that uses a lot of energy and partially because it needs protein, which it takes from the muscle. However, what most people don't know is that every diet causes muscle loss, even healthy ones. A healthy lower of calories, that is a 500 calorie deficit, will cause 75 percent fat loss and 25 percent muscle loss. Starvation diets cause a 50 percent fat loss, and a 50 percent muscle loss, however, this has two main causes. The body is not getting enough protein, and people eating small amounts of food, or no food, usually do not have the energy to do strength training. Not that the Atkin's Diet pushes the body into starvation mode, but does not cause excessive muscle loss. This is because Atkin's followers get massive amounts of proteins and so the body does not need to take protein from the muscles and most do strength training, to prevent excessive muscle loss. It works. They end up with the more average 75/25 fat/muscle loss ratio. So, if a person eating 500 calories a day ate it all in protein, and had the strength to do some strength training, they would conceivably end up with a 75/25 ratio as well, or at least something close to that. This is all very interesting, you think, but why should I believe you? Your just a random person writing on the internet. Good point. Let me give you some examples. First, basic anatomy. The body uses glucose as fuel. Well, no food equals no glucose. So what does the body do? It breaks down fat. It has to break down fat because it uses the glycerol there to fuel the body. There is no possible way for the body not to break down fat, because it would die otherwise. It also uses the ketones produced by the breakdown of fats to fuel the brain, and the brain is obviously very important. There's also the Minnesota Semi-Starvation Study, that took place in 1944. The men ended up losing 25% of their starting body weights, even though their metabolisms slowed by 40 percent, and they were of average weight to begin with. Anorectics, who impose starvation on themselves, also disprove most of the starvation mode myths. They do not gain weight or stay the same. They continue to lose weight, even though they are severely underweight. Finally, Very Low Calorie Diets are used by physicians to treat obesity in some cases, and these diets are typically under 800 calories daily. There you have it. The reality of starvation mode. Not nearly as frightening as made out to be. Of course, I don't support starvation type diets, and these will make you gain weight. Most likely because you will be very hungry, and most people do not have the willpower to consistently eat very little and will end up binging, and yes, your body will hold on to those calories because it has already depleted some of its storage, and you will gain weight. Furthermore, starvation diets tend not to give your body enough nutrients. Did you know a potassium deficiency can cause a heart attack? Not something you want to play around with. That being said, if you drop below your calories for a day, you don't have to fear a dead metabolism and rapid weight gain.

zaph0d

Good luck with your weight loss everybody who is still struggling to loose weight! :flowerforyou:

davidmcgowan1987

I dont eat my calories back, i exercise more if i think ive eaten too much

or sometimes if i really want to eat something ill burn calories off in advance

smilesalot1969

i LOVE MFP....BUT i don't rely on it for calorie burn it's too generic( ie: someone 10st and all muscle will have an entirely different rate of burn from someone all fat MFP doesnt allow for that so much). I bought myself a fitbit after toying between that and a HRM and i rely on the calories shown on there. I DONT eat my exercise calories back most of the time because i dont usually feel the need, however i'm not going to starve and if i feel hungry i'll use some to make a huge salad or a protein bar or something. Saying that this is personal to ME, its what i've learned works for me and its not necessarily what would work for someone else

Restybaby2012

I do NOT eat mine back. I will burn on some days over 1000 (according to MFP) and I only eat around 800 or 900 a day. Phoooy on eating them back. I'm here to lose not exercise so I can eat more. I do want to get a HRM and may just get it for Christmas. But if I'm hungry I'm going to eat no matter where I'm at with my calorie count.

^^^THIS^^^^

mariagabriella

I do NOT eat mine back. I will burn on some days over 1000 (according to MFP) and I only eat around 800 or 900 a day. Phoooy on eating them back. I'm here to lose not exercise so I can eat more. I do want to get a HRM and may just get it for Christmas. But if I'm hungry I'm going to eat no matter where I'm at with my calorie count.

It's not about exercising to eat more. It's about eating enough so you can work out.

Arwenne

I don't eat my calories back- I find it just speeds up my weight loss- sometimes I'll allow myself a few extra- but I will try not to use them all. Hope this helps- however I do have PCOS so I do find I have to do 4 x as much work to lose 1lb than the average person. :-(

zigeuner62

I don't eat mine back either and I've been losing consistently since I started. I'm on High Blood pressure medicine which makes it harder to lose as well. It's an individual choice.

llsand

Starvation Mode: Dispelling the Myths If you've been on a diet, you've surely heard about it. The dreaded starvation mode. How many people have said to you, "be careful not to dip below 1200 calories. Your body will go into starvation mode and you'll gain weight." Or, what about, "Oh, you're not eating enough, that's why you're not losing weight. Your body is in starvation mode." A frightful sounding thing indeed. It seems like a dieter just can't win. If they eat too much, they won't lose weight. If they eat too little, they won't lose weight. Can all this really be true? The simple answer is no. Starvation mode has been embellished so much that it's almost a complete lie at this point. So what is starvation mode really? Starvation mode, more formally known as famine response, is part of your body's survival mechanism. When you aren't getting a sufficient amount of calories to run your body, your body does indeed fall into famine response, because normally, when one isn't eating, it's because there is nothing to eat. Starvation mode slows down the body's metabolism to try and save as much energy as it can. It also breaks down muscle, but I'll go into that a bit later. So, yes, famine response, or starvation mode, does slow down your metabolism and does break down muscle, but that's where the truth ends and the embellishment begins. Firstly, starvation mode is not something that kicks in automatically. If you skip a day of eating, your body is not going to freak out and drop your metabolism to a slow crawl. Starvation mode kicks in after continuous fasting or severe calorie restriction, usually longer than a week, but at least 3 days. If you've fasted, or restricted calories severely, you know the feelings of hunger pangs and how horrible they were. That's your body saying, "Eat. I need fuel." Since your body is telling you to eat, it believes there is still food to be eaten, so no starvation mode yet. When the hunger subsides, usually after about 3 to 5 days, your body has decided to there must not be food and uses alternative energy sources. This is a good indication that starvation mode is not far away. People also believe that starvation mode will make you gain weight. This is essentially false. Starvation mode does slow down the metabolism, but if you are eating so little that starvation mode has set in, you are not going to gain weight. The percentage by which the metabolism slows down, which can be as much as 40 percent, does not overshadow the calorie deficit. All it means is that, if you are eating 500 calories a day, and you are supposed to get 2000, you should lose 3 pounds a week with your metabolism running normally. Let's say your metabolism dropped 30 percent. You would have a basal metabolic rate of 1400 calories a day instead, and so you would lose 1.8 pounds a week instead. Considerably fewer amounts of weight, but you would still lose weight. You can not gain weight by taking in fewer calories a day. It does not make sense scientifically, especially if you understand physics. Let's get back to the muscle loss, because that is concerning to most people. Starvation mode does cause muscle loss, partially because it is getting rid of something that uses a lot of energy and partially because it needs protein, which it takes from the muscle. However, what most people don't know is that every diet causes muscle loss, even healthy ones. A healthy lower of calories, that is a 500 calorie deficit, will cause 75 percent fat loss and 25 percent muscle loss. Starvation diets cause a 50 percent fat loss, and a 50 percent muscle loss, however, this has two main causes. The body is not getting enough protein, and people eating small amounts of food, or no food, usually do not have the energy to do strength training. Not that the Atkin's Diet pushes the body into starvation mode, but does not cause excessive muscle loss. This is because Atkin's followers get massive amounts of proteins and so the body does not need to take protein from the muscles and most do strength training, to prevent excessive muscle loss. It works. They end up with the more average 75/25 fat/muscle loss ratio. So, if a person eating 500 calories a day ate it all in protein, and had the strength to do some strength training, they would conceivably end up with a 75/25 ratio as well, or at least something close to that. This is all very interesting, you think, but why should I believe you? Your just a random person writing on the internet. Good point. Let me give you some examples. First, basic anatomy. The body uses glucose as fuel. Well, no food equals no glucose. So what does the body do? It breaks down fat. It has to break down fat because it uses the glycerol there to fuel the body. There is no possible way for the body not to break down fat, because it would die otherwise. It also uses the ketones produced by the breakdown of fats to fuel the brain, and the brain is obviously very important. There's also the Minnesota Semi-Starvation Study, that took place in 1944. The men ended up losing 25% of their starting body weights, even though their metabolisms slowed by 40 percent, and they were of average weight to begin with. Anorectics, who impose starvation on themselves, also disprove most of the starvation mode myths. They do not gain weight or stay the same. They continue to lose weight, even though they are severely underweight. Finally, Very Low Calorie Diets are used by physicians to treat obesity in some cases, and these diets are typically under 800 calories daily. There you have it. The reality of starvation mode. Not nearly as frightening as made out to be. Of course, I don't support starvation type diets, and these will make you gain weight. Most likely because you will be very hungry, and most people do not have the willpower to consistently eat very little and will end up binging, and yes, your body will hold on to those calories because it has already depleted some of its storage, and you will gain weight. Furthermore, starvation diets tend not to give your body enough nutrients. Did you know a potassium deficiency can cause a heart attack? Not something you want to play around with. That being said, if you drop below your calories for a day, you don't have to fear a dead metabolism and rapid weight gain.

This is arguably the most complete and understandable explanation i've ever read. It’s simple, to the point and logical. It was a pleasure reading. Thank you very much !

beansprouts

After being disappointed with the last two months of hardly losing any weight/gaining weight I now know where the problem lies. A few months ago I put up a topic with regards to eating calories back, do you/don't you etc. I give reasons why it didn't seem to make sense working out and then having to eat them all back and although some of you were more than helpful and said they don't eat them back, there were others who were downright rude and nasty about it and throw in some rather sarcastic answers along with their views.

Before I start I eat around 1550 calories a day before exercise. Some days I would burn over 1000calories a day doing Tae bo.

So sticking to the advice that I received about eating back calories I decided to do that and for the past two months hardly any change was received par a 1/2 pound here or there.

So today I hired a personal trainer. He made me wear this heart monitor thing as well and off we went to work out. I did 35mins on Elliptical Trainer and the monitor read 520 calories. He told me that I didn't need to eat my calories back as weighing over 300lbs I should have enough fat restore in my body however he did add if I was hungry to eat half but he preferred me not to.

Out of a matter of interest I checked on here how many calories would I have burned and it came back with a figure of 730 calories for the same amount of time. 210 calories is allot to be out and explains how I haven't been able to lose any weight when I have been eating extra calories over and above. I guess that is why I am so angry that I was given sarcastic advice on here with regards to my eating habits and eating back my calories, fad diets and that if I didn't eat them back I was starving myself to death so all along adhering to their so called advice I have been sitting on the fence wondering why the heck was I not losing any weight?!

Now I seem to be questioned with regards to the burn I did today whether it is correct or not as it seems rather high. I don't need to prove anything to anyone on here, my results will speak for themselves next week, god willing.

In future I think if you want to give instructive advice please make sure you know what you are talking about before belittling someone's efforts. No doubt there will be a back lash from the same 'rude' people again on this thread but I am past caring what you think!

So to anyone else that has the same amount of weight to lose like me please do not eat all your calories back that is suggested on here otherwise you will either gain weight or won't lose it. Instead get yourself a heart rate monitor thing and go by that.

Anyways rant over and out!

:flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou: :flowerforyou:

markpmc

That's one of the reasons I don't log my exercise on MFP. The two things that constantly trip people up are portion size and calorie burn.

kingofcrunk

I totally agree with the OP. I don't understand why people don't want to deprive themselves. I've had years of indulging myself whatever I want. A bit of 'deprivation' (otherwise known as control) is fine.

You shouldn't get your pleasure from food anyway. If I want pleasure now I either get it from a non eating based activity or learn to live without.

Poorgirls_Diet

The problem is, you aren't talking about your REAL exercise calories burned, so your argument is flawed. The fact that the heart monitor said you burned less than what MFP says simply implies that you CAN'T just go on a loose estimate and then eat whatever calories back that number is. Especially if you have quite a bit of weight to lose.

Mathematically, it's still possible to eat back exercise calories and lose weight. It works for me, but I purposefully underestimate how many calories I burn doing a given activity. (I often hula-hoop and do kundalini yoga, for example, and I base my calories burned off various estimates I found online for my body weight, and then go off a bit lower number.)

It's all abut accuracy. While it may be true that eating back only half of your exercise calories is fine if you're hungry and eating 1700 a day, it changes a bit when you're someone like me who only eats 1200 a day before exercising. I burn lot of calories and I have a fast metabolism, so when I don't eat back most of mine, I get a lot of bad side-effects. And I lose weight quite quickly as long as I'm staying at a good net.

Different things work for different people, but usually it's the math that's flawed and not the method.

I guess you really didn't have much weight to lose to start off with? So don't judge your experience on mine. The fact is I have over 200lbs to lose and I have been told by a professional that I don't need to eat my calories back. Regardless of your mathematically gibberish I will stick to what the professionals tell me and after all they know best!

Also as stated in another post the HRM matched the calories burned on the machine that I was using. Use your Mathematical skills on that one and come up with an answer!!

I never read your last thread but i can perhaps see why a lot of people seemed to turn on you - your replies are quite aggressive and really inviting people to have a go at you. Don't be so defensive and chill out a bit

You admited yourself you were over estimating your calories burned so your net was higher than you throught and that is probably why your weight loss stagnated. Is your net that matters so no don't eat your calories back especially if you're not hungry- keep them in the bank for a rainy day.

Sorry about that. I have developed a no tolerance attitude to these people as they were the ones that give the cr*p advice in the first place. Call me names and I ain't going to sit back and let it happen.

I just want to point something out here I didn't know that the calories were being over estimated until yesterday when I seen my pp. He made me wear a hrm and it was found out there then. When I wrote the first post back a few months ago I came onto this site to lose weight and needing help instead all I got was a few sarcastic comments saying that I will go into starvation when people has said clearly here that they haven't. In fact all they were doing was basing their experience and think they have the answers to everything when they actually know nothing. As I said in my first thread I really do not give a hoot what these people think about me, I am here for my goals and not to listen to garbage! But thanks for your advice, its noted, now I won't be eating any calories back and will keep them for many rainy days in uk! Take care

Poorgirls_Diet

The problem is, you aren't talking about your REAL exercise calories burned, so your argument is flawed. The fact that the heart monitor said you burned less than what MFP says simply implies that you CAN'T just go on a loose estimate and then eat whatever calories back that number is. Especially if you have quite a bit of weight to lose.

Mathematically, it's still possible to eat back exercise calories and lose weight. It works for me, but I purposefully underestimate how many calories I burn doing a given activity. (I often hula-hoop and do kundalini yoga, for example, and I base my calories burned off various estimates I found online for my body weight, and then go off a bit lower number.)

It's all abut accuracy. While it may be true that eating back only half of your exercise calories is fine if you're hungry and eating 1700 a day, it changes a bit when you're someone like me who only eats 1200 a day before exercising. I burn lot of calories and I have a fast metabolism, so when I don't eat back most of mine, I get a lot of bad side-effects. And I lose weight quite quickly as long as I'm staying at a good net.

Different things work for different people, but usually it's the math that's flawed and not the method.

I guess you really didn't have much weight to lose to start off with? So don't judge your experience on mine. The fact is I have over 200lbs to lose and I have been told by a professional that I don't need to eat my calories back. Regardless of your mathematically gibberish I will stick to what the professionals tell me and after all they know best!

Also as stated in another post the HRM matched the calories burned on the machine that I was using. Use your Mathematical skills on that one and come up with an answer!!

I never read your last thread but i can perhaps see why a lot of people seemed to turn on you - your replies are quite aggressive and really inviting people to have a go at you. Don't be so defensive and chill out a bit

You admited yourself you were over estimating your calories burned so your net was higher than you throught and that is probably why your weight loss stagnated. Is your net that matters so no don't eat your calories back especially if you're not hungry- keep them in the bank for a rainy day.

^This. In particular the part about the aggressive replies--I would actually say that the OP's response to this person describing the "math" thing was quite rude...I'm sorry if you didn't like the responses to your "rant" about why you personally don't eat exercise calories back, but wow...if you don't want a variety of responses (some of which you may not agree with and many which are simply based on individuals' various experiences) DON'T post on a public message board. Just message your friends individually and your professional person (trainer?) to get the answers you want to hear.

sheesh.

Your opinion really doesn't matter to me, honestly Sheesh......

love4fitnesslove4food_wechange

Why is this thread not locked yet?