so let me get this straight
Replies
-
Yea I figured out my BMR separately from this site, did all the calculations of activity level - 500 cals a day and have my number
I don't eat back exercise calories.
I keep it simple
If I did not eat back my exercise cals I'd be fueling my body with right around 760 calories/day. Not gonna happen.
I think you are still misunderstanding what we are doing when we calculate that out to where we do not eat exercise calories. If I figure out that my TDEE (including 5 one hour workouts per week) is say 2600 calories and then I cut 15% off of that I would then eat 2210 daily, and as long as I am continuing to do those workouts that will work. If I log the workout calories everytime and then eat those calories I am over eating because the workouts were already figured into the original 2600 calories.
eta: So honestly I think saying that we don't eat exercise calories is wrong, because my workout calories are already included in my daily caloric intake.0 -
Yea I figured out my BMR separately from this site, did all the calculations of activity level - 500 cals a day and have my number
I don't eat back exercise calories.
I keep it simple
If I did not eat back my exercise cals I'd be fueling my body with right around 760 calories/day. Not gonna happen.
I think you are still misunderstanding what we are doing when we calculate that out to where we do not eat exercise calories. If I figure out that my TDEE (including 5 one hour workouts per week) is say 2600 calories and then I cut 15% off of that I would then eat 2210 daily, and as long as I am continuing to do those workouts that will work. If I log the workout calories everytime and then eat those calories I am over eating because the workouts were already figured into the original 2600 calories.
I'm not misunderstanding anything.
1260 to lose 1lb/week
1460 to lose .5/week
1660 to maintain
On days I workout if I did not eat mine back I'd be only taking in 760 or so worth of food. for the entire day. What am I confused about?0 -
I don't think she was suggesting that you not eat back your exercise calories. She's just sharing what works for her, same as you did.
If I did not eat back my exercise cals I'd be fueling my body with right around 760 calories/day. Not gonna happen.
[/quote]
Weight Watchers is set up the very same way. Activity points. If the person is not eating back their exercise calories how are they going to keep the weight off long term?0 -
.0
-
By eating at maintenance once they reach their goal weight.
I don't think she was suggesting that you not eat back your exercise calories. She's just sharing what works for her, same as you did.
If I did not eat back my exercise cals I'd be fueling my body with right around 760 calories/day. Not gonna happen.
Weight Watchers is set up the very same way. Activity points. If the person is not eating back their exercise calories how are they going to keep the weight off long term?0 -
By eating at maintenance once they reach their goal weight.
I don't think she was suggesting that you not eat back your exercise calories. She's just sharing what works for her, same as you did.
If I did not eat back my exercise cals I'd be fueling my body with right around 760 calories/day. Not gonna happen.
Weight Watchers is set up the very same way. Activity points. If the person is not eating back their exercise calories how are they going to keep the weight off long term?
But how are they actually eating at maintenance if they are not eating back their exercise calories?0 -
Yea I figured out my BMR separately from this site, did all the calculations of activity level - 500 cals a day and have my number
I don't eat back exercise calories.
I keep it simple
If I did not eat back my exercise cals I'd be fueling my body with right around 760 calories/day. Not gonna happen.
I think you are still misunderstanding what we are doing when we calculate that out to where we do not eat exercise calories. If I figure out that my TDEE (including 5 one hour workouts per week) is say 2600 calories and then I cut 15% off of that I would then eat 2210 daily, and as long as I am continuing to do those workouts that will work. If I log the workout calories everytime and then eat those calories I am over eating because the workouts were already figured into the original 2600 calories.
I'm not misunderstanding anything.
1260 to lose 1lb/week
1460 to lose .5/week
1660 to maintain
On days I workout if I did not eat mine back I'd be only taking in 760 or so worth of food. for the entire day. What am I confused about?
1660 = maintain
1160 = lose 1lb per week
500 x 7 = 3500 = 1lb
also, you'd be taking in more than 760 of food. you'd still be eating the food, it's just that your TDEE goes up on days you exercise.
760 calories with no exercise is bad
1460 calories with exercise that burns 700 calories is not as bad, if you have a high BF%. you are fueling your body at that level and you're burning stored fat. but if you started out in the high 200's or low 300's, the only way you're going to drop that weight within a 12-18 months is to both eat at a large deficit and exercise while your BF % is high. as the BF% comes down, then you relax the calorie deficit. MFP doesn't want you to shoot for more than 2lb per week because the owners of the site think that it's emotionally/mentally unsustainable over the long haul, but for those of us who needed to lose 100lbs or more, it is the only way to drop the weight as quickly as necessary. that's not vanity either. some people are told they need to lose ASAP by their doctors. in my case, it was high blood pressure that my doctor got very melodramatic about.0 -
You think they're going to gain weight by not eating back their exercise calories?
By eating at maintenance once they reach their goal weight.
I don't think she was suggesting that you not eat back your exercise calories. She's just sharing what works for her, same as you did.
If I did not eat back my exercise cals I'd be fueling my body with right around 760 calories/day. Not gonna happen.
Weight Watchers is set up the very same way. Activity points. If the person is not eating back their exercise calories how are they going to keep the weight off long term?
But how are they actually eating at maintenance if they are not eating back their exercise calories?0 -
Yea I figured out my BMR separately from this site, did all the calculations of activity level - 500 cals a day and have my number
I don't eat back exercise calories.
I keep it simple
If I did not eat back my exercise cals I'd be fueling my body with right around 760 calories/day. Not gonna happen.
I think you are still misunderstanding what we are doing when we calculate that out to where we do not eat exercise calories. If I figure out that my TDEE (including 5 one hour workouts per week) is say 2600 calories and then I cut 15% off of that I would then eat 2210 daily, and as long as I am continuing to do those workouts that will work. If I log the workout calories everytime and then eat those calories I am over eating because the workouts were already figured into the original 2600 calories.
I'm not misunderstanding anything.
1260 to lose 1lb/week
1460 to lose .5/week
1660 to maintain
On days I workout if I did not eat mine back I'd be only taking in 760 or so worth of food. for the entire day. What am I confused about?
1660 = maintain
1160 = lose 1lb per week
500 x 7 = 3500 = 1lb
also, you'd be taking in more than 760 of food. you'd still be eating the food, it's just that your TDEE goes up on days you exercise.
760 calories with no exercise is bad
1460 calories with exercise that burns 700 calories is not as bad, if you have a high BF%. you are fueling your body at that level and you're burning stored fat. but if you started out in the high 200's or low 300's, the only way you're going to drop that weight within a 12-18 months is to both eat at a large deficit and exercise while your BF % is high. as the BF% comes down, then you relax the calorie deficit.
Not to beat a dead horse but how am I taking in more than 760 calories (in this example)? If I burn calories from an intense workout and only log 760 from food since I'm not eating back my exercise cals how does that 760 magically morph into 1260? Magic beans?0 -
No, they'd keep losing. If you fail to eat exercise calories, you are undereating.
You think they're going to gain weight by not eating back their exercise calories?But how are they actually eating at maintenance if they are not eating back their exercise calories?0 -
Not to beat a dead horse but how am I taking in more than 760 calories (in this example)? If I burn calories from an intense workout and only log 760 from food since I'm not eating back my exercise cals how does that 760 magically morph into 1260? Magic beans?
it's the difference between net and gross.
you may have a net calorie intake on the day of 760, but that's the result of your gross calories minus your exercise. 1460 - 700 = 760. you still ate the 1460 calories that day, you just did an extra 700 calories of exercise on top of what your body is already burning for all of its functions. i was just correcting what you said...
"I'd be only taking in 760 or so worth of food"
PS - did you notice that your maintenance and lose 1lb per week calorie intakes were off by 100 calories?0 -
The poster said that if you didn't eat back your exercise calories you wouldn't be able to keep the weight off.
No, they'd keep losing. If you fail to eat exercise calories, you are undereating.
You think they're going to gain weight by not eating back their exercise calories?But how are they actually eating at maintenance if they are not eating back their exercise calories?0 -
I just want to be pretty.0
-
Not to beat a dead horse but how am I taking in more than 760 calories (in this example)? If I burn calories from an intense workout and only log 760 from food since I'm not eating back my exercise cals how does that 760 magically morph into 1260? Magic beans?
it's the difference between net and gross.
you may have a net calorie intake on the day of 760, but that's the result of your gross calories minus your exercise. 1460 - 700 = 760. you still ate the 1460 calories that day, you just did an extra 700 calories of exercise on top of what your body is already burning for all of its functions.
NO. I think you misunderstand. Because I eat dinner after my workouts if I don't eat back my exercise calories...let's just say I walk away at the 760 instead of tacking on the 500 from the burn...I'm not eating back my exercise calories in this example. I'm not talking about the person that eats the 1260 and does not log a 500 calorie workout. I'm talking about real life. My example. If I did not eat back my 500 exercise calories I'm only only only eating 760. I come home from that workout and eat my dinner and *bam* I'm equaling my 1260 and eating back my exercise calories.
Flip it upside down. There's a lot of us that eat dinner after our workouts. And if we did not eat back that workout--following this NON MFP plan...we're under eating to fuel our machines.0 -
if u exercise, your calorie count just goes up. A lot of us don't use our exercise calories, but it's at your discretion........0
-
So you're saying that on a day when you don't exercise, you eat 760 calories and nothing more?Not to beat a dead horse but how am I taking in more than 760 calories (in this example)? If I burn calories from an intense workout and only log 760 from food since I'm not eating back my exercise cals how does that 760 magically morph into 1260? Magic beans?
it's the difference between net and gross.
you may have a net calorie intake on the day of 760, but that's the result of your gross calories minus your exercise. 1460 - 700 = 760. you still ate the 1460 calories that day, you just did an extra 700 calories of exercise on top of what your body is already burning for all of its functions.
NO. I think you misunderstand. Because I eat dinner after my workouts if I don't eat back my exercise calories...let's just say I walk away at the 760 instead of tacking on the 500 from the burn...I'm not eating back my exercise calories in this example. I'm not talking about the person that eats the 1260 and does not log a 500 calorie workout. I'm talking about real life. My example. If I did not eat back my 500 exercise calories I'm only only only eating 760. I come home from that workout and eat my dinner and *bam* I'm equaling my 1260 and eating back my exercise calories.
Flip it upside down. There's a lot of us that eat dinner after our workouts. And if we did not eat back that workout--following this NON MFP plan...we're under eating to fuel our machines.0 -
That amount of calories actually seems really low to me. And if you don't consume enough calories, your metabolism will slow down, and could actually cause you to gain weight. You have to give your body enough of the nutrients that it needs to be and stay healthy. I am certainly not a doctor, this is just my opinion. I would recomend talking to your doctor if you are concerned about it at all. He/ she can tell you exactly what you should do in this case.0
-
I get confused on this as well. I mean, I would be eating another 1,100+ calories a day if I ate back all of my exercise calories. When the scale isn't moving in my favor I will up my calories to see if that will start the losing process again and it normally does the trick. But eating back all the calories everyday, not good for me. Besides, most days I have a hard time getting up to the 1,460 that I'm supposed to eat.0
-
so i have a daily total of 1300 calories a day and i exercise everyday so your telling me if i wanna lose weight i need to eat all of those calories ?
Yes! Just make sure you don't over estimate your calories burned through exercise.0 -
So you're saying that on a day when you don't exercise, you eat 760 calories and nothing more?Not to beat a dead horse but how am I taking in more than 760 calories (in this example)? If I burn calories from an intense workout and only log 760 from food since I'm not eating back my exercise cals how does that 760 magically morph into 1260? Magic beans?
it's the difference between net and gross.
you may have a net calorie intake on the day of 760, but that's the result of your gross calories minus your exercise. 1460 - 700 = 760. you still ate the 1460 calories that day, you just did an extra 700 calories of exercise on top of what your body is already burning for all of its functions.
NO. I think you misunderstand. Because I eat dinner after my workouts if I don't eat back my exercise calories...let's just say I walk away at the 760 instead of tacking on the 500 from the burn...I'm not eating back my exercise calories in this example. I'm not talking about the person that eats the 1260 and does not log a 500 calorie workout. I'm talking about real life. My example. If I did not eat back my 500 exercise calories I'm only only only eating 760. I come home from that workout and eat my dinner and *bam* I'm equaling my 1260 and eating back my exercise calories.
Flip it upside down. There's a lot of us that eat dinner after our workouts. And if we did not eat back that workout--following this NON MFP plan...we're under eating to fuel our machines.
Oh hell no.
I've always been a healthy weight. I use MFP to stay in a healthy weight range. I eat my exercise calories back. I'm just saying if I did not eat after my workouts I'd be at around 760 for the day.0 -
I get confused on this as well. I mean, I would be eating another 1,100+ calories a day if I ate back all of my exercise calories. When the scale isn't moving in my favor I will up my calories to see if that will start the losing process again and it normally does the trick. But eating back all the calories everyday, not good for me. Besides, most days I have a hard time getting up to the 1,460 that I'm supposed to eat.
You did not become overweight by not eating enough. It's quality of those calories. If you're not eating processed foods you will not have trouble reaching the 1460. You will be hungry.0 -
After reading this thread, I have deduced that, in the end, this is relatively simple.
If you followed the guided goal setting offered by MFP, you should list your activity level without accounting for the workouts that you do. I have a desk job, so I am sedentary.
I list that I do plan to work out 3 times a week in a separate area. It does not matter how many times I say that I will work out in a week, my net calorie goal does not change. Therefore, I need to eat back the calories I burn because my net calorie intake is does not take into account those workouts.
That being said, there is the question of exactly how many calories you burn in a workout. I've found that the calories MFP claims I burn rock-climbing is pretty inaccurate. I'm looking into buying HRM in order to track exactly how many calories I burn.0 -
so i have a daily total of 1300 calories a day and i exercise everyday so your telling me if i wanna lose weight i need to eat all of those calories ?
Wow, ok had to go back and read the OP again to remember where this all started. The answer to your question is "No". You do not need to eat back your exercise calories to lose weight, in fact doing so may slow or even reverse your weight loss effort. Based solely on your profile picture you do not appear to be a skin and bones individual who is here to "tone up", you have fat on your body and you are trying to lose it, right? If that is the case, exercise all you can and don't eat a single calorie back and "if" you get to a weight that is still above "healthy" and you remain at that weight for 8 weeks then you should increase your daily calorie intake by 200 - 400 for two weeks and then weigh in and go from there. The closer to healthy you get the more you have to "trick" your body into giving up the little fat it has, for now...your body is begging you to take the fat off.
I really wish you the best of luck and hope that I have helped a bit, Have A Great Day!0 -
Eating after your workout is not what people mean by eating back exercise calories. They mean eating above their normal everyday no workout calories because they exercised.
So you're saying that on a day when you don't exercise, you eat 760 calories and nothing more?Not to beat a dead horse but how am I taking in more than 760 calories (in this example)? If I burn calories from an intense workout and only log 760 from food since I'm not eating back my exercise cals how does that 760 magically morph into 1260? Magic beans?
it's the difference between net and gross.
you may have a net calorie intake on the day of 760, but that's the result of your gross calories minus your exercise. 1460 - 700 = 760. you still ate the 1460 calories that day, you just did an extra 700 calories of exercise on top of what your body is already burning for all of its functions.
NO. I think you misunderstand. Because I eat dinner after my workouts if I don't eat back my exercise calories...let's just say I walk away at the 760 instead of tacking on the 500 from the burn...I'm not eating back my exercise calories in this example. I'm not talking about the person that eats the 1260 and does not log a 500 calorie workout. I'm talking about real life. My example. If I did not eat back my 500 exercise calories I'm only only only eating 760. I come home from that workout and eat my dinner and *bam* I'm equaling my 1260 and eating back my exercise calories.
Flip it upside down. There's a lot of us that eat dinner after our workouts. And if we did not eat back that workout--following this NON MFP plan...we're under eating to fuel our machines.
Oh hell no.
I've always been a healthy weight. I use MFP to stay in a healthy weight range. I eat my exercise calories back. I'm just saying if I did not eat after my workouts I'd be at around 760 for the day.0 -
After reading this thread, I have deduced that, in the end, this is relatively simple.
If you followed the guided goal setting offered by MFP, you should list your activity level without accounting for the workouts that you do. I have a desk job, so I am sedentary.
I list that I do plan to work out 3 times a week in a separate area. It does not matter how many times I say that I will work out in a week, my net calorie goal does not change. Therefore, I need to eat back the calories I burn because my net calorie intake is does not take into account those workouts.
That being said, there is the question of exactly how many calories you burn in a workout. I've found that the calories MFP claims I burn rock-climbing is pretty inaccurate. I'm looking into buying HRM in order to track exactly how many calories I burn.
Sounds like you've got a good handle on this.0 -
I get confused on this as well. I mean, I would be eating another 1,100+ calories a day if I ate back all of my exercise calories. When the scale isn't moving in my favor I will up my calories to see if that will start the losing process again and it normally does the trick. But eating back all the calories everyday, not good for me. Besides, most days I have a hard time getting up to the 1,460 that I'm supposed to eat.
You did not become overweight by not eating enough. It's quality of those calories. If you're not eating processed foods you will not have trouble reaching the 1460. You will be hungry.
You're right. I became overweight by eating tons of the bad unhealthy crap! Everyone knows not all calories are created equal. I can eat 1,500 calories of junk or 1,500 calories of healthy stuff. I will still lose weight either way, but the first example will leave me "skinny fat." I know its important to eat your calories, but what's the point in force feeding myself if I'm not hungry? I notice that when I do workout I'm not that hungry. I drink tons of water and green tea each day and having the liquids keeps me from feeling hungry. I can function on 1,000 calories a day but choose not to because I know it isn't healthy for me and my body. To meet my calorie goal most days I have to add in almonds or extra protein just to get up to my goal. So at the end of the day after adding in exercise I break even or net around 345 calories or something like that.0 -
Correct.
You burn about 1800-2500 cals a day just through activity so this makes perfect sense.0 -
There is so much bad (or at the very least misleading/confusing) information in this thread it's scary. I'm tempted to report it in hopes of a mod deleting the entire thing.0
-
Depends on the individual. My trainer/nutritionist has told me to stick with 1400 (ish), and not to eat back my exercise calories. I've started losing again-slowly, but steadily. BUT, what works for me won't necessarily work for others.
Find a new trainer...STAT
I have full faith in my trainer and his abilities. He's had proven results from multiple people, and he has both a bachelor's and masters in Food Science, and is a certified nutritionist. I think I'll stick with his qualified advice.
Thanks for the tip!0 -
Really? Because you don't like something you think other people shouldn't have the right to read it?There is so much bad (or at the very least misleading/confusing) information in this thread it's scary. I'm tempted to report it in hopes of a mod deleting the entire thing.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions