Exercise calories

Gembo82

Hello,
I started mfp last month and really enjoy the site, i try to work out 6x a week and burn typically 300cals. I have read on other posts that some people eat the calories they burn through exercise and i have tried to avoid this, do i really need to eat the calories i burn?
Also i use a exercise bike will this be ok to lose weight on and i dont want to bulk up will i?
I spoke to a friend and they said to avoid crunches while i am still over weight as it would just tone the muscle under the fat and wont help, just make me look 'wider' in the midriff area, is this true or do i continue with the crunches?

erickirb

crunches will not make your waist wider nor will it burn abdominal fat, but is very beneficial for overall fitness, will help you run, jump, improve posture, reduce back strain, and much more. So keep doing them for those benefits.

When it comes to exercise calories you should eat most of them as MFP already sets you up in a caloric deficit, exercising puts you further into a deficit, and if for a prolonged period your body isn't getting enough fuel your metabolism will slow down making loosing weight harder and gaining weight easier. So you should at least eat some is not most. Good luck.

LOVESFITNESS

You are doing the right thing with not eating the calories that you burn, this way you will lose weight quicker. You will not bulk up from your bike, men and women are built differently and it is not possible to bulk up like a man unless you are taken steroids. Id suggest that you add bicycle crunches to your ab work out, normal crunches may make your stomach pop out.

Deweypc20

If MFP has already set you up to say lose 1 pound per week, then you are set up for a 500 calorie deficit per day.

If you burn 300 calories in working out, and don't eat the 300 calories, then you are now at an 800 calorie deficit.

You run the risk of being too low on your calories, which can put your body into starvation mode, which will essentially have your body try to store fat instead of burn it.

Not to mention if you are severly under your calorie goal for the day, you will find yourself out of energy to work out.

so you need to eat your exercise calories, bottom line

stroutman81

Hello,
I started mfp last month and really enjoy the site, i try to work out 6x a week and burn typically 300cals. I have read on other posts that some people eat the calories they burn through exercise and i have tried to avoid this, do i really need to eat the calories i burn?

I see this question asked all the time here. There's obviously a lot of confusion with the concept of eating your exercise calories back and to be honest, there isn't a universally accepted answer.

Probably because it truly does depend.

Let's try to make this real simple:

Maintenance is where calories in = calories out, right?

We know that a calorie deficit is required if fat is to be lost, so calories in < calories out.

Large deficits can have negative effects such as increased cravings, muscle loss, irritability, unsustainability (I made that word up), etc.

So we want a moderate deficit, which I'd label as 20-35% off of your maintenance.

So if your maintenance is 2000 calories, anywhere from 1300 to 1600 calories would be realistic for fat loss.

That's a deficit of 400-700 calories per day.

Said deficit, in theory, could come from many, many combination of factors.

On one end of the spectrum you could simply eat 400-700 calories less per day.

On the other end of the spectrum you could keep eating 2000 calories but increase calories expended via exercise to 400-700 calories per day.

If you went with this later scenario, you wouldn't have to eat back your exercise calories because the expended calories from exercise put you in the sweet spot, calorically speaking.

Now if you cut calories by 400-700 AND increased activity by 400-700, then you'd be running too large a deficit unless you ate back your exercise calories.

Follow that logic?

Also i use a exercise bike will this be ok to lose weight on and i dont want to bulk up will i?

Why wouldn't it be alright? Anything that helps you expend energy (calories) will help create a calorie deficit.

And don't worry about bulking up. Bulking up requires a bunch of things which you aren't doing or don't have. Namely it requires sufficient calories (a surplus), the right hormonal disposition (lots of testosterone which women don't have), and appropriate exercise (namely lifting weights in a progressively heavier fashion).

Even if you were to eat sufficient calories AND lift weights progressively heavier, you wouldn't get bulky since you aren't hormonally dispositioned to do so.

That you a dieting female, you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Though I could easily make an argument for adding some form of resistance training to the mix as it provides a strong stimulus for muscle preservation. Remember, you'd not doing this to reach some certain number on the scale. You're doing this to optimize your body composition which can only be had by minimizing your fat and maximizing your muscle.

LOVESFITNESS

I dont eat my workout calories, that is definatly a waste of all the hardwork and sweat that you put into your workout. Ive been doing the same thing for more than 3 years and im just fine and i dont find im sluggish or anything. Just make sure your eating the right kinda stuff to fuel your body. Goodluck.

stroutman81

I dont eat my workout calories, that is definatly a waste of all the hardwork and sweat that you put into your workout. Ive been doing the same thing for more than 3 years and im just fine and i dont find im sluggish or anything. Just make sure your eating the right kinda stuff to fuel your body. Goodluck.

You're missing the point. For you, not eating back your exercise calories might put you in that sweet spot, calorically speaking, that I mentioned above.

For others, that won't be the case. There isn't a universally acceptable approach here as it will depend on the person, the diet, and the exercise schedule.

In addition, there's more to exercise than calorie expenditure.

louloup

I always eat back at least half of my exercise calories.
MFP put me on 1200 cals and i do insanity workouts and try to eat a clean (ish) diet of approx 1500 cals.

I try and follow the 80/20 rule and be active wherever possible during the day.

If you dont eat the cals back at first you might lose a bit more but in the long run (in my opinion) you will be hungrier, lose muscle and not be able to stick to it

good luck with your choices

LOVESFITNESS

As a fitness trainer I was taught that not eating your workout calories unless you are starving then you will get quicker results :P and when you start seeing the results it is simple to stick to the routine.

erickirb

As a fitness trainer I was taught that not eating your workout calories unless you are starving then you will get quicker results :P and when you start seeing the results it is simple to stick to the routine.

This is true if you don't restrict your caloric intake into a deficit before exercise, then the exercise becomes your deficit. If you are already in a 500-1000 cal deficit you should eat your exercise calories so you have energy to exercise, and don't slow down your metabolism.

LOVESFITNESS

Everyone is different and it is your choice on how you decide to use those calories that you worked your butt off to burn.

stroutman81

As a fitness trainer I was taught that not eating your workout calories unless you are starving then you will get quicker results :P and when you start seeing the results it is simple to stick to the routine.

What sort of fitness trainer are you? By that, I mean who are you certified through? I have my cPT and CSCS through the National Strength and Conditioning Association. I also have cPT and PES through the National Academy of Sports Medicine. These are arguably the top tier of certifications you can receive in this field.

I don't say this to brag, as I feel even the upper tier of supposedly great certifications and certifying bodies are lacking, to say the least. And even these don't go into any sort of detail with regards to whether or not you should eat your exercise calories back or not.

I don't suspect that any quality certifying agency would delve into that discussion, because then, they, too, would be missing the forest for the trees. In other words, they'd be missing the big picture, like many folks around here do.

If not eating your exercise calories back keeps you in a SANE DEFICIT, then it's fine not to do so. If not eating them back accompanies an already sharp reduction in calories consumed, you might consider eating some or all of them back in order to preserve a sane deficit.

It's really that simple.

The poster above took the words right out of my mouth.

TheMaidOfAstolat

Guys...it appears that LOVESFITNESS is probablly trolling. There is nothing on her profile except these few comments on this one thread.

Back to the OP- eat your cals...as Stroutman and Erickirb have pointed out- you need to replenish the deficit that you burn though excercise.

LOVESFITNESS

Everyone has their own opinions towards eating or not eating your workout calories. All i meant was that if you are only burning 300 calories or less then there is no need to eat those calories. since she is not doing strength training or burning massive amounts of calories then then there is no need to eat all of the exercise calories.

LOVESFITNESS

ps i just joined myfitnesspal, sorry that i dont have a massive amount of time on my hands to go threw and fill everything else out.

stroutman81

Everyone has their own opinions towards eating or not eating your workout calories. All i meant was that if you are only burning 300 calories or less then there is no need to eat those calories. since she is not doing strength training or burning massive amounts of calories then then there is no need to eat all of the exercise calories.

Fair enough.

But here's my point that you seem to be continually missing. You can't say, "it doesn't matter if she does or doesn't" without looking at the bigger picture. What's her total energetic state look like? How many calories does she need to maintain. How many calories is she consuming on an average day? How active is she outside of exercise? etc, etc, etc.

I don't mean to argue with you, but you're helping drive home a point that I believe needs driving around here, so that I thank you for.

LOVESFITNESS

So you are saying that if you are not hungry you should still eat because you exercised, if you load up on protein and lots of fruits and veggies and drink your eight glasses of water your not going to need those extra calories if you are hardly burning any calories, that is the point i was trying to get across.

LittleSpy

Opinions, sure. Let me give you some real EXPERIENCE.

I started here very obese. I didn't eat my exercise calories (which were generally 400-1300/day). I ate 1200 calories and burned that much through exercise. I was dropping weight FAST! Then 4.5 months in I slammed into a HUGE wall. I guarantee my body had adjusted my metabolism to cope and I was in the notorious "starvation mode" (Yes, it DOES exist. It's a survival mechanism). As several people mentioned above, that point is different for everyone. No one can say when your body is going to decide to freak out. That's why some people have success not eating exercise calories and some people ONLY have success eating 100% of them.

I was having great success doing what I was doing (basically starving myself). I knew at some point I would have to start eating more or exercising less but the problem was I had no idea when that point would be so I just kept going.

I can tell you that crawling out of starvation mode has been very tedious work. I've been at it since the end of January. I lost over 50 pounds my first 4.5 months with MFP. I've lost about 15 more in my last 3 months with MFP because I've been struggling so much trying to find the correct calorie deficit. Every time I increase my calorie intake a couple weeks later I start to lose weight again for a couple weeks and then it stalls out again and I increase again and over and over. I'm now up to eating 400-800 calories more per day (*every* day) than I was eating before! Even eating this much more, I'm still losing weight and still dropping inches.

I was just noting on another thread that before, when I was eating so little, I'd lose like 20-25 pounds and still be the same pants size. Yet in the last 9 pounds I've gone from a size 16 to a tight size 12!

Anyway, my recommendation is to eat your exercise calories. I honestly think you will probably regret it in the long run, as I do, if you don't.

TheMaidOfAstolat

Everyone has their own opinions towards eating or not eating your workout calories. All i meant was that if you are only burning 300 calories or less then there is no need to eat those calories. since she is not doing strength training or burning massive amounts of calories then then there is no need to eat all of the exercise calories.

On here I am put on a 1200 cal a day 'diet'...so you're saying that if I only excercised 300 cals away it wouldn't affect anything?

That right there is why you need to know who you're talking to. I'm 25, female, weigh 90 pounds, 5 feet tall, BF % of 16, and am a vegetarian. If I had not told you this and I only ate the 900 cals (because I excercised those 300 away) I would easily put my body into starvation mode within a few weeks. This is why Mike has designed the website to pop up a warning when you do not meet all of the days required calories. Better to be safe than sorry.

stroutman81

Phew, with these previous two posts it's obvious the message isn't getting across.

So I'll make this my last post.

What matters is your NET energetic state.

If your net deficit come primarily from those expended via exercise, no, you don't want to eat them back your exercise calories. Otherwise you'd be back at maintenance where calories in = calories out and weight will be stable.

If, on the other hand, your net deficit comes from both reduced calorie consumption and exercise expenditure, it's really doing to depend on how great your total deficit is when deciding whether you should or shouldn't eat back your exercise calories. By that, I mean if the reduction in calories consumed and those expended combine to create a 50%+ deficit based on your estimated maintenance, you should probably eat your exercise calories to avoid what some people like to term the starvation mode.

If, on the other hand the combined deficit totals something more sane, like 30% or so, then it's really up to you.

The answer is, no matter what YOUR experience or your opinion is, it depends.

LittleSpy

Phew, with these previous two posts it's obvious the message isn't getting across.
<snip>

The answer is, no matter what YOUR experience or your opinion is, it depends.

Wait, are you referring to MY post?
Because of course "it "\depends." Which is something I made perfectly clear in my post. If you are referring to mine, try reading it again because we're in complete agreeance, unless I'm totally misunderstanding what you're saying here. I'm not usually very dense, so I don't think that's the case.

This is what my post said: If you're putting your body at a calorie deficit, you're going to lose weight (note that your body *can* adjust your metabolism to a certain point to cope with what you're taking in and exercising out which is how you can possibly end up in "survival/starvation mode"). And IMO (which is *not* professionaly certified, by the way, only based in good logic and reason), there's no really great reason to try your luck with a 1500-2000 calorie deficit every day for months at a time. Most people will lose weight well with a moderate deficit of 500-1000. Some people can't handle one that big and some can handle a much bigger deficit. But, why push it? If you have a decent amount of weigh to lose, put yourself at what you think is a moderate deficit. If you have a very small amount to lose, put yourself at a small deficit. You can either do that by eating maintenance cals & exercising to create the deficit or by cutting your calories & then eating back your exercise cals when you do exercise. Either way, you can put yourself at the same deficit & you're eating essentially the same amount.
So YES IT DEPENDS. But the only way to find out what YOUR body is capable of handling is to try it & see what happens. And if you try testing it with huge deficits and find yourself with a very lowered metabolism, you *are* going to have to work hard and make lots of adjustments to speed it up again.

TheMaidOfAstolat

Phew, with these previous two posts it's obvious the message isn't getting across.
<snip>

The answer is, no matter what YOUR experience or your opinion is, it depends.

Wait, are you referring to MY post?
Because of course "it "\depends." Which is something I made perfectly clear in my post. If you are referring to mine, try reading it again because we're in complete agreeance, unless I'm totally misunderstanding what you're saying here. I'm not usually very dense, so I don't think that's the case.

This is what my post said: If you're putting your body at a calorie deficit, you're going to lose weight (note that your body can adjust your metabolism to a certain point to cope with what you're taking in and exercising out). And IMO (which is *not* professionaly certified, by the way, only based in good logic and reason), there's no really great reason to try your luck with a 1500-2000 calorie deficit every day for months at a time. Most people will lose weight well with a moderate deficit of 500-1000. Some people can't handle one that big and some can handle a much bigger deficit. But, why push it? If you have a decent amount of weigh to lose, put yourself at what you think is a moderate deficit. If you have a very small amount to lose, put yourself at a small deficit. You can either do that by eating maintenance cals & exercising to create the deficit or by cutting your calories & then eating back your exercise cals when you do exercise. Either way, you can put yourself at the same deficit & you're eating essentially the same amount.

I think Stroutman meant his two previous posts.

stroutman81

@littlespy

I actually did mean the previous two posts before mine, which included yours and LF.

Admittedly though, I stopped once I read:

"As several people mentioned above, that point is different for everyone. No one can say when your body is going to decide to freak out. That's why some people have success not eating exercise calories and some people ONLY have success eating 100% of them. "

That led me to believe you thought, for some, there was some magic to eating the calories back that you expended via exercise. When in fact, as I think you know, the adaptive response to dieting has mostly to do with net energy balance than anything else.

I see you've got a handle on this stuff, so my apologies for jumping the gun and including your post.

Fair enough?

LittleSpy

I see you've got a handle on this stuff, so my apologies for jumping the gun and including your post.

Fair enough?

I was just so confused how you could be so frustrated with what I had said when we were saying the same thing. :laugh:
Brevity isn't my specialty so I know my posts can be about as clear as mud sometimes.

stroutman81

I was just so confused how you could be so frustrated with what I had said when we were saying the same thing. :laugh:
Brevity isn't my specialty so I know my posts can be about as clear as mud sometimes.

Haha, yours and mine both! Plus, I admit, at that point in this thread my frustration was at its peak. Reading comprehension goes to poop when my frustration is high, haha.

Best to ya!

TheMaidOfAstolat

You guys are making me laugh.

LOVESFITNESS

I believe that no you should definatly eat more than 900 calories oh my, the lowest you can go is 1200 calories a day. Im a size 3 and went from a size 13 to this size in 2 years by doing what i am doing and i have been able to stick with it. I am not starving and im healthy so...

kwardklinck

If you're losing faster than 2 pounds a week, you need to eat more. Losing faster than that can mess up your metabolism and make your goal weight hard to maintain.

LOVESFITNESS

I have been able to maintain my weight of 125lbs for quite a while now, but everyone is different and has different routines.

kwardklinck

Ok this is cracking me up. I've been to a nutritionist who told me how many of each food group to eat every day. I follow her advice no matter what diet I'm on. My doctor even told me on my last visit that I wasn't eating enough calories when I told her I was eating 1200 a day. I increased it to 1400 a day and continued to lose weight at a rate of 1-2 pounds per week. I'm now on maintenance and some days eat nearly 1900 calories (if I run that day). I think the goal should be to eat as much as you can (healthy calories) while losing. It makes your metabolism work more efficiently. That way, if I do have a bad day (eating-wise), my body can handle it.

stroutman81

I'd agree with that in general. There are certain, specialized instances where that rule would be broken... but that's not ordinary. For instance, with some of my clients and myself there have been times where something like a PSMF (protein sparing modified fast) has been called for.