WHY DO PEOPLE EAT BACK THEIR EXERCISE CALS?!

CAUSE I GET HONGRY!

lol

:laugh:

From what I can best understand about how the deficit works, it goes like this. And I'm doing to try and explain it the best I can.

Let's say for example, your body requires 2000 calories in order to function throughout the day. This means that if you did NOTHING for an entire day, you would burn through 2000 calories a day.

Now knowing this, If you don't eat anything, your body would still burn through 2000 calories a day, it simply won't get those calories from food. You'll either start going into fat reserves or muscle, but your body WILL get that energy from somewhere. So in order to counter and balance that expenditure, you would need to ingest 2000 calories in order to maintain your current body weight without any adverse side effects.

Now, If you worked out and burned off 600 calories, this mean that your body now burns through 2600 calories to function for that day.

This means that, after working out, you decided to eat a 600 calorie meal, you're body would still require 2000 calories in order to maintain your current body weight. This means that YOU ARE STILL LOSING WEIGHT, and for those of trying to lose weight, the point is to still get enough calories to function throughout the day without feeling hungry or starved, while staying low enough below that deficit to lose weight.

Exercising means we burn MORE calories, which means we have to ingest more calories, but because of the extra calories expended through exercise, still retain a higher calorie deficit than if we just sat around and starved ourselves.

My point is, you HAVE to eat those calories, but don't just replace them, replace them with nutrient-dense calories, calories your body can actually use for things instead of just storing as fat, and don't go over them. Don't go and burn off 1000 calories at the gym and then eat 3000 calories.

Sorry for the caps but MFP's reply boxes don't allow Italics so I don't have any other way of getting my point across.

I did Weight Watchers years ago, and while you do earn activity points for exercise as well as flex points, no one ever made me feel like I had to use them. In fact I recall being encouraged to minimize use of these extra points for maximum results. Unless I'm hungry or its a special occasion, I'm not touching my exercise calories. I don't have a HRM so all I have are estimates and we know that MFP tends to estimate burned calories high. I just feel like its a slippery slope to eat back your calories, if you have the discipline to do it without ODing than go for it, but I just don't trust it. Besides I couldn't imagine eating that much food. Today I burned more than 1000 calories and I ate 1200 calories. It is 1030 at night. I have eaten 3 meals and a snack and I am full and one for the night.

Do you relaize that by eating only 1200 and burning 1000, is the same as eating only 200 on a day you don't workout? 1200 is the minimum anyone should ever get with no exercise.

I think a better way of saying it is, if you eat only 1200 calories and burn 1000, you now have a 2000 calorie deficit for the day. Thats what people don't understand. MFP needs to put up a sticky or just explain it better when you sign up!

So since my BMR is like 1700 cal and i want to burn 2lbs a week, i need a defecit of 7000 cals a week (-1000 a day).

So, MFP sets my food at 1200 (-500 so far) and then i need to burn 500 more a day to meet that -7000 cal a week.

So why would I eat it back?!?

I AGREE

BMR is if you were to stay in bed all day, TDEE is what you should be looking at. You will burn 500 calories a day doing your normal activities even if it's a desk job. so you have reached 1000 calorie deficit everyday by not working out. going to the gym will cause the deficit to be larger than 1000, thats why you eat them back.

At my "advanced" age and size, my BMR is only about 1250-1300. I lost most of my weight eating 1350-1600 NET (more as I approached my goal), so with exercise calories, that was around 1800-2100 total. Sometimes more.

Because MFP already figures in a reasonable to high calorie deficit when you choose your weight loss goals. If you are shooting to lose 2lbs/wk, and you don't eat back exercise calories, your deficit becomes higher than well established safe limits. You can only lose so much fat in a day, so pushing the boundaries means your additional weight loss beyond a reasonable deficit is going to come from your muscle mass. Not a good choice.

NOT TRUE, you won't start using muscle until your below 6% body fat.

This is not true you loose both muscle and fat just like when you lift to gain muscle you cannot have muscle without fat, they go hand in hand. You will not go into (from what ive read and understand) true starvation mode until you get below 6 percent body fat or appoximatly. The poster it seems to me is just trying to educate themselves dont take my word or anyone elses for that matter do some research and do what is best for you what works for one may not work for another.

[/quote]

http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/

Use the Military Body Fat Calculator to get your body fat %.
Then use the BMR calculator.
It will give you a chart. Pick your activity level, eat that amount of calories and don't eat back your exercise calories.
[/quote]

Thanks for posting this website. That really helped me out.

I agree, it seems a bit pointless.

I don't eat mine back for that reason, however everyone does what try do because that is what works for them.

Not eating them should lead to faster weight loss, the problem is a larger % of the loss will come from lean muscle, the less you have to lose the more important it becomes to eat them for this reason.

I did Weight Watchers years ago, and while you do earn activity points for exercise as well as flex points, no one ever made me feel like I had to use them. In fact I recall being encouraged to minimize use of these extra points for maximum results. Unless I'm hungry or its a special occasion, I'm not touching my exercise calories. I don't have a HRM so all I have are estimates and we know that MFP tends to estimate burned calories high. I just feel like its a slippery slope to eat back your calories, if you have the discipline to do it without ODing than go for it, but I just don't trust it. Besides I couldn't imagine eating that much food. Today I burned more than 1000 calories and I ate 1200 calories. It is 1030 at night. I have eaten 3 meals and a snack and I am full and one for the night.

Do you relaize that by eating only 1200 and burning 1000, is the same as eating only 200 on a day you don't workout? 1200 is the minimum anyone should ever get with no exercise.

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.

I get what you are saying but its not realistic for me. I finished my workout at 7pm. How do you suppose I pack on an extra 1000 calories between 7 and 11ish when i went to bed. Its not realistic for me or many others who often have evening workouts. Also what if I had eaten those calories because I planned to burn 1000 calories later and then I didn't go to the gym. I just screwed myself. Let's not forget we are dealing with estimated numbers. I don't know that I burned 1000 calories, I don't have a HRM. I know I did 60 minutes of spin class and Jillian Michaels Body Revolution Workout 6 for 35 minutes. MFP estimates that is 1000+ calories, but I'm not dipping into them, at least not substantially unless I have hard numbers. In general I eat when I'm hungry. I ate a large dinner immediately after my workout. An hour later I was hungry again and I ate again, after that I felt full and felt full all night long. If I was hungry I would have eaten more, but when I'm not hungry I stop. I'm not going to keep eating just because MFP says there is some number I'm suppose to hit.

While I know many hear swear by this method and I say do whatever works for you. But I remain skeptical of eating back exercise calories as a method for my weight loss journey. As a woman with PCOS that has a hard enough time making the scale move, training my body to eat when I'm hungry instead of over indulging which is partly why I'm here is important to me. Even in spite of my 50lb weight gain in the last two years, I never stopped working out. I did two rounds of Insanity and lost 5lbs and almost no inches because I uses exercise as a reason to justify eating more. If I was on maintenance fine, but when you are losing exercise shouldn't be an excuse to pig out, you exercise to get fit. Dieting is about discipline and self-control. Eating my exercise calories back unless I'm hungry does not seem like a disciplined approach, which is what I need in my life to move forward.

I did Weight Watchers years ago, and while you do earn activity points for exercise as well as flex points, no one ever made me feel like I had to use them. In fact I recall being encouraged to minimize use of these extra points for maximum results. Unless I'm hungry or its a special occasion, I'm not touching my exercise calories. I don't have a HRM so all I have are estimates and we know that MFP tends to estimate burned calories high. I just feel like its a slippery slope to eat back your calories, if you have the discipline to do it without ODing than go for it, but I just don't trust it. Besides I couldn't imagine eating that much food. Today I burned more than 1000 calories and I ate 1200 calories. It is 1030 at night. I have eaten 3 meals and a snack and I am full and one for the night.

Do you relaize that by eating only 1200 and burning 1000, is the same as eating only 200 on a day you don't workout? 1200 is the minimum anyone should ever get with no exercise.

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.

I get what you are saying but its not realistic for me. I finished my workout at 7pm. How do you suppose I pack on an extra 1000 calories between 7 and 11ish when i went to bed. Its not realistic for me or many others who often have evening workouts. Also what if I had eaten those calories because I planned to burn 1000 calories later and then I didn't go to the gym. I just screwed myself. Let's not forget we are dealing with estimated numbers. I don't know that I burned 1000 calories, I don't have a HRM. I know I did 60 minutes of spin class and Jillian Michaels Body Revolution Workout 6 for 35 minutes. MFP estimates that is 1000+ calories, but I'm not dipping into them, at least not substantially unless I have hard numbers. In general I eat when I'm hungry. I ate a large dinner immediately after my workout. An hour later I was hungry again and I ate again, after that I felt full and felt full all night long. If I was hungry I would have eaten more, but when I'm not hungry I stop. I'm not going to keep eating just because MFP says there is some number I'm suppose to hit.

While I know many hear swear by this method and I say do whatever works for you. But I remain skeptical of eating back exercise calories as a method for my weight loss journey. As a woman with PCOS that has a hard enough time making the scale move, training my body to eat when I'm hungry instead of over indulging which is partly why I'm here is important to me. Even in spite of my 50lb weight gain in the last two years, I never stopped working out. I did two rounds of Insanity and lost 5lbs and almost no inches because I uses exercise as a reason to justify eating more. If I was on maintenance fine, but when you are losing exercise shouldn't be an excuse to pig out, you exercise to get fit. Dieting is about discipline and self-control. Eating my exercise calories back unless I'm hungry does not seem like a disciplined approach, which is what I need in my life to move forward.

You don't have to eat after you workout. If you know you are going to workout later, estimate what you will burn, and eat that throughout the day. timing of caloric intake is irrelevant. If you are afraid you wont make it to the gym just eat some of them prior to working out then the rest after, that way if you don't workout you are only slightly over your goal for the day.

Because MFP already figures in a reasonable to high calorie deficit when you choose your weight loss goals. If you are shooting to lose 2lbs/wk, and you don't eat back exercise calories, your deficit becomes higher than well established safe limits. You can only lose so much fat in a day, so pushing the boundaries means your additional weight loss beyond a reasonable deficit is going to come from your muscle mass. Not a good choice.

NOT TRUE, you won't start using muscle until your below 6% body fat.

That's absurd. Everyone on a deficit loses some muscle- the goal is to preserve it as much as possible. It's impossible to lose 100% fat. I think you're confusing losing muscle with starvation (not starvation mode, true starvation).
Here's typical weight loss, per my exercise physiology textbook.

Check this
http://fitnessblackbook.com/main/starvation-mode-why-you-probably-never-need-to-worry-about-it/

Not trying to be snarky here, but I don't know if you're agreeing with me or arguing by posting this site- it doesn't really have any impact either way on my point. I'm definitely not going to get in to an argument about starvation mode vs. starvation- those discussions always get hung up on semantics and I'm not interested. If you're using a blog where it mentions muscle loss at lower than 6% BF to counter a textbook, I'm not going to argue that either. People can post anything they want in blogs- they're not credible sources.

The blog references a study, which shows that you won't lose muscle on a deficit unless you're around 5-6%. Many people can maintain and sometimes increase muscle mass on a cal deficit (especially with methods such as intermittent fasting).

When I first started I didn't eat my calories back, figuring I would lose weight faster. I talked to a few people and put it in perspective. If you don't eat enough calories than your body goes into starvation mode and you will be losing weight from your muscles instead of burning fat. Eating back your calories allows for your body to use them as fuel, I have found that when I increase my calories for a few days and then switch back to 1200 calories a day + eating back for my workouts that I lose more.

starvation mode is a myth

The way most people referr to it yes. But it is not.

After prolong underr-eating your body will slow down or stop non life sustaining functions. What this does is lower your BMR which means your maintenance calories are lower than they would normally be at the same weight, making it harder to lose weight as your deficit becomes smaller due to this lower BMR.

Also under eating for too long without strength training your body will shed muscle, as it perceives you are starving and don't need this muscle, and since muscle burns more cals at rest the more muscle your body sheds the lower you BMR in order to survive on a lower caloric intake.

Because MFP already figures in a reasonable to high calorie deficit when you choose your weight loss goals. If you are shooting to lose 2lbs/wk, and you don't eat back exercise calories, your deficit becomes higher than well established safe limits. You can only lose so much fat in a day, so pushing the boundaries means your additional weight loss beyond a reasonable deficit is going to come from your muscle mass. Not a good choice.

NOT TRUE, you won't start using muscle until your below 6% body fat.

That's absurd. Everyone on a deficit loses some muscle- the goal is to preserve it as much as possible. It's impossible to lose 100% fat. I think you're confusing losing muscle with starvation (not starvation mode, true starvation).
Here's typical weight loss, per my exercise physiology textbook.

Check this
http://fitnessblackbook.com/main/starvation-mode-why-you-probably-never-need-to-worry-about-it/

Not trying to be snarky here, but I don't know if you're agreeing with me or arguing by posting this site- it doesn't really have any impact either way on my point. I'm definitely not going to get in to an argument about starvation mode vs. starvation- those discussions always get hung up on semantics and I'm not interested. If you're using a blog where it mentions muscle loss at lower than 6% BF to counter a textbook, I'm not going to argue that either. People can post anything they want in blogs- they're not credible sources.

The blog references a study, which shows that you won't lose muscle on a deficit unless you're around 5-6%. Many people can maintain and sometimes increase muscle mass on a cal deficit (especially with methods such as intermittent fasting).

That's the thing- the blog doesn't reference a study. It draws conclusions about a study without referencing it. And you're drawing conclusions on someone else's conclusions, from facts that haven't been explicitly stated. My interpretation of the blog is different than yours- I think that it's saying that at 3000+ calorie deficit, and low body fat %, you will lose significant muscle. I agree with that- but I don't think you can extrapolate conclusions from the facts given about people losing muscle, who still have body fat to lose, at a more moderate calorie deficit. If you have links to the actual study I would be happy to look at it.
Here's a starting point for you to look for it-
http://www.abstractboard.com/author/Friedl+K/K-Friedl.html

I did some digging and thought I *might* have found the "referenced" study(http://www.ajcn.org/content/83/5/1068.full), but then there's this in the discussion section, which is basically the opposite of the blog author's conclusion:

"With prolonged underfeeding, FFM loss is ≈25% of the weight lost, with fat accounting for the balance, although extreme energy deficits, as in the present study, can increase the contribution of FFM (38). Using less glycogen would tend to decrease protein use for gluconeogenesis and reduce the loss of FFM (38, 39). Women are reported to use less glycogen and excrete less urea nitrogen than men in response to ≈95 min of moderate-intensity exercise (35). The loss of FFM during the FEX was a smaller percentage of body weight loss in the women than in the men."

So, please, if you have the study post it.

You're right the blog didn't reference it, just talked about it. But yeh that's the right study you found.

My point is that- these guys started off not very lean (on average), they had a large cal deficit every day and consistently lost fat without losing muscle until they reached 5-6%. Going against what you said about muscle always being lost when losing fat.

I don't think it is unreasonable to say that this shows that we can lose fat without losing muscle (as that is what happened up until the 8th week when some of the guys hit 5-6% bf). & most people here won't intend to go below 5-6% fat OR be at such an extremely low cal deficit either (which both contributed to the eventual loss in muscle).

Again the army guys only started losing muscle when they were around 5-6%. Before that they maintained muscle whilst losing fat which goes against the point you're making that muscle is always lost when cutting.

With regards to the quote you give- at the end of the study muscle was lost yes due to the severe cal deficit in combination with the low bodyfat %'s, but that doesn't change the fact that the first 8 weeks showed that fat can be lost without muscle being lost.

Anyway there is plenty of anecdotal evidence out there as well of people losing fat and maintaining or even gaining muscle. Some examples can he found here http://www.leangains.com/search/label/Success Stories