Should you really use the extra calories from exercise?

I feel the same way- I dont feel like I am doing as well when i am eating them all back...as long as I dont get lower than 1200 cals a day I figure I am good and then when I do have a day where I want sweets...I have those cals to fall back on

I don't think it's particularly important to eat them back entirely. Usually you will eat part of them back because more exercise makes you more hungry, but if you have a few hundred left and don't feel like you need the food, I don't see anything wrong with that. I just try to listen to what my body needs rather than follow the exacts number!

For me personally, I take it day by day and try to listen to what my body is telling me. If I'm hungry, then I eat some of them, if I'm not, then I don't see the need to eat mindlessly. Generally speaking, the more/harder I workout though, the hungrier I am, so often times I need the calories to keep myself going. I don't want to be weak and unable to do my workouts, but I also want to lose. I think we find the balance with this over time, and you may need to experiment a bit to see what works for you. There are folks who do eat all the exercise calories and still lose, but that doesn't happen to work for me.

I agree with her, sometimes I eat them back. Listen to your stomach. My sister eats her exersize calories back and she is consistently losing weight.

I just read on another post that when you calculate your TDEE - 20% that you should eat the same # of calories a day and not eat back any exercise calories because thats already calculated into your TDEE. Which makes sense but now im confused because others say that since you have the 20% deficit already taken out you can eat back your exercise calories to keep you at that deficit and maintain muscle. Can anyone clarify this. I dont understand why it has to be so confusing and controversial.

I let my body be my guide. If I am hungry, I eat back my exercise calories. If not, then I don't worry about it.

When I burn 800+ I eat maybe 150 of them. I burn a lot, and I almost never eat them. I'm not losing muscle, and still losing lots of fat. Honestly, I don't really care about eating more when I exercise.

I am not a big fan of eating for the sake of eating. If you've had 1200 calories and are not hungry, I don't see the point in forcing yourself to eat. I think if you get to the point where your body needs those extra calories, you WILL be hungry. If you are at 1200 calories and you just finished a really tough zumba class and you're hungry, by all means, eat. Hell, if you're at 1200 calories and you're hungry you should eat even if you haven't exercised that day- just make it something healthy. But I wouldn't eat just to meet some arbitrary number.

Unfortunately, I do see a lot of "I exercise so I can eat more", which is not the point of it... not at all.

Why not? It's worked great for me - it gives me a little extra incentive to exercise.

You have to be realistic about how many calories you are burning, and not use 15 minutes on the treadmill as an excuse to eat a Whopper with Bacon.

Unfortunately, I do see a lot of "I exercise so I can eat more", which is not the point of it... not at all.

Why not? It's worked great for me - it gives me a little extra incentive to exercise.

You have to be realistic about how many calories you are burning, and not use 15 minutes on the treadmill as an excuse to eat a Whopper with Bacon.

"Why not?" what?

You contradicted yourself.

Unfortunately, I do see a lot of "I exercise so I can eat more", which is not the point of it... not at all.

Why not? It's worked great for me - it gives me a little extra incentive to exercise.

You have to be realistic about how many calories you are burning, and not use 15 minutes on the treadmill as an excuse to eat a Whopper with Bacon.

"Why not?" what?

You contradicted yourself.

"Why not" exercise so you can eat more.

The post I was replying to said that working out you can eat more is "not the point of it" (implying "not the point of working out").

Plenty of us use eating back our exercise calories as an incentive to do the exercise.

The only caution is that you cannot burn 100 calories (15 minutes on the treadmill) and use it as an excuse to eat 1,500 calories (Whopper with Bacon). That would leave me with 1,400 calories I've eaten but not burned. You have to be realistic about how many calories you've burned/earned.

I don't see how I've contracted myself at all.

I don't really eat mine back either. Diets should work mathematically. I desire to lose 2 lbs per week. 2 lbs = 7000 calories. I set my eating to give me a deficit of 3500 calories and then my exercise to give me a deficit of 3500. That way I should lose weight. If I ate them back then my deficit would be off which would require me to eat less or exercise more.

Do you want to lose fat or muscle and fat. A calorie deficit puts your body into a catabolic state. If the deficit is really high, your body will rely on your muscles to produce energy. It does this by converting the amino acids from muscle into energy. Also, when you properly fuel your body, you are able to push harder in your workouts where you burn more calories. In fact, if you don't believe me do some weight training. Set up a scenario where you do XX number of moves at 8 reps. Do the same exercise for two weeks (this is without eating back exercise calories). The second 2 weeks start to eat 20% below TDEE and see how much you can increase weight. I have done this experiment with several people on this board. Every one was able to improve strength.

Also, high deficits cause your body to release cortisol, which make it harder to lose fat. Another reason you it's important to maintain a smaller deficit. Below is a little study (comparison) I have just started. I can tell you, of the people I have already, there is a huge difference in the amount of muscle loss. Those who eat exercise calories or eat 20% below TDEE lose about 10% of the lbm while those who do not eat back exercise calories lose 30-50% of their weight from muscle.

Muscle is what makes your body look tight and lean, it's what burns more calories so you can eat more and it linked to insulin resistances and immune system issues. The muscle, the better your body will look and respond. Below are two great examples of women who gained muscle and weight.

Some of you might say, well i will wait until I get to my ideal weight and gain muscle back. Well, it's very harder to gain muscle. Women can gain about 7-10 lbs a year and men can double. But when you gain muscle, you also gain fat (10% at least of the weight is fat). This means, after you gain muscle (while eating at a surplus) then you have to go through another cut phase. So while you could have maintained your muscle and made it easier for yourself if you ate more food to begin with, you end up trying to fix your mistakes.


Also, I am a firm believer of "to look like an athlete, you need to train and eat like one". The fourth link is another MFP study I did. Those who are already cut, lean and have tight bodies all ate higher calories (around 20% below TDEE). Women averaged 1600 calories, men around 2400. So if you want to be one of those who have a tight body, why don't you train and eat like one.




http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/708037-weight-loss-vs-fat-loss


http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2011/07/21/meet-staci-your-new-powerlifting-super-hero/

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/392784-skinny-fat-vs-fit-photo?hl=skinny+fat

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/395948-caloric-intake-results?hl=caloric+intake+results&page=1#posts-5425208

EAT THEM BACK.