Eating back exercise cals does not wok for me

WifeofPJ

I've read the topics here on eating back exercise cals and had some comments that said I needed to eat more. But I'm here to say that eating back the cals is making me gain. I've put on five pounds and it's NOT muscle.

I'm going back to what was working, 1200-1400 cals a day and keeping my workout cals burned to boost my fat loss.

The theory sounds good, eat more and lose, but it's not happening for me.

I also think that MFP way inflates the cals earned during exercise.

Improtant thing to remember is that MFP does inflate the Cals earned during exercise. It's best to get a heart Rate Monitor and record your calories burned from that. It is common that most people under estimate their food and over estimate their calories burned. I would suggest measuring everything and trying to eat back calories earned and see what happens then. I don't eat back all my calories earned by I do eat back many of them.

I got myself a decent heart rate monitor because of my concerns about this. In fact, MFP estimates of my burn are near enough the same as the HRM - by which I mean that after have deducted my BRM from the HRM burn, it's within 20 or so calories either way of the MFP estimate. So now I don't bother much with wearing the HRM, I just use the MFP estimates (although I do periodically check my regular exercises against the HRM, and I use it when trying a new type of exercise). All these things are only estimates, you have to adjust according to your own experience. But I notice it's often stated almost as a given that Mfp estimates are way over, and I'm sure they are for some people - notably the ones fitter than me, lol - but my case shows that it ain't necessarily so.

So actually you are agreeing with me because you calculate your BMR and subtract it from the MFP burned. most people don't want to do that work or calculation.

gatorginger

I don't think eating more to lose more is anything more than anecdotal. Keep doing what works for you. Less calories can only equal more weight loss (unless you're too hungry to work out- which doesn't sound like the case with you).

I always hear people talk about how they needed to eat more to lose more, it never seems to be coming from anyone particularly fit.

Lol!!!! This is hilarious. Go visit the eat more group and honestly tell me that none of them are particularly fit. Sorry I stil can't stop laughing!

Are you talking about people who body build and lift weights or a 30s-50s aged woman who does primarily cardio and is looking to shed pounds?

I'm not familiar with the "Eat More Group" on this forum, but the idea that you need to eat more to break plateaus is prominent on another forum I visit and 80% of the members are pretty overweight.

What I said is a blanket statement, but 'eat more' works for a particular said of people. Unless you're doing some pretty vigorous, weight bearing exercises (not swimming and gardening, which is what the OP does), eating more is just going to make you gain weight.

You don't have to be a body builder. Plus people would only gain if they ate above TDEE. Eat more simply means eating at a smaller deficit to lose weight and maintain LBM. For many people it is a more sustainable way to lose weight. I don't know what hroups you have visited but I can tell you that you should really do some more research before making such blanket statements.

For the record: after regaining the weight I lost from under eating, I joined an eat more group because they were my inspirations. I lost 130 lbs lowered my bf% to under 20, I never stalled, I have been maintaining for 2 years and have reversed most of the damage done to my body from under eating. I am also not a body builder.

I agree with the eat more to lose as it worked for me. I started out at eating 1000 calories a day and then I came across the eat more to lose weight group so I bravely increased my calories by 100 more a day and stayed that way for two weeks and let me tell you I lost weight when I increased my calories. I didn't want to eat 1000 calories for the rest of my life. Anyhow I continued to take baby steps and continued to increase my calories and I lost more than I needed to and I have been maintaining for about a year now. I eat anywhere from 1500 to 1700 calories now. So eating more to lose does work but I think some people try eating a lot more too soon. I took baby steps and only increased by 100 more calories a day and would stay there for at least two weeks. Everytime I increased I lost weight until I got up to 1700 which seems to be my maintenance level. That is why when someone hits a plateau many people suggest eating more to jump start your metabolism again, all I know is it worked for me. It may not be the answer for everyone but the only way they will know is test it out. I'm sure the majority would like to lose while eating more