eating exercise calories when not hungary

How are you calculating the calories burned?

If you are not using a HRM I would only eat 50-75% of them anyway, as MFP and other machines tend to over estimate calories burned.

That said, hunger is not the best indication of the body's need for nutrition.

How are you calculating the calories burned?

If you are not using a HRM I would only eat 50-75% of them anyway, as MFP and other machines tend to over estimate calories burned.

^^This! I wouldn't relie on MFP's calorie burns...they are too high.

If I'm not hungry, I don't eat them all back. I may eat some but usually not all. I agree with the statement that if you are going off MFP or a machine, your numbers might not be accurate and you may want to eat less.

The longer I exercise, the farther apart the machines and MFP get from my HRM. The machines are way higher- like 100-150 higher than my HRM. But, for the most part, MFP is pretty accurate for me, usually within 10-20 of my HRM.

If you really feel like you need to eat it all, eat something that is high caloric like nuts or peanut butter...something where you don't need a lot to quickly get calories.

Hunger is your body's way of telling you it "thinks" it needs more nutrition (I purposely didn't say food or calories).

I disagree, I get hungry when my stomach is empty, even if I don't need more nutrition or calories. I could drink 4000 calories/day and still be very hungry, but my body doesn't need any more nutrition (assuming I drank the right stuff), it is just telling me it is empty, as liquid passes through quicker.

It is much better to pay attention to energy levels, mood, etc.

I am really confused about this "eating your exercise calories" but I am new to most of this and confused in general. I am using MFP and based on my goals it gives me a Calorie budget for the day, if I add exercise to the log it takes away from my calories consumed and gives me an adjusted budget. Seems simple enough if I stay under the adjusted budget I should be on track for my weight loss goal. The less the better right so why force yourself to eat your exercise calories unless you are hungry? I assume it has do do with the basal calories need at rest to prevent organ damage etc.
What is throwing me is that it seems that as long as I have caloric reserves (FAT) than why worry about damage? I know I want to avoid a "starvation" metabolic shift but that should not be the case if you are just not hungry.
I defiantly eat more calories than I get for exercise credit, is that all it means?.
So where am I screwed up on all of this?
Sorry if this is a derail of the thread.

Less is not better. There is a sweet spot and depending on how much you have to lose it could be different. The less you have to lose the smaller your weekly weight loss goal should be, and with all goals you should eat back exercise cals in order to hit that goal, trying to lose more than the weekly goal may set you up to lose a large% of lean muscle instead of fat, and could lead to many other negative side effects.

If MFP gives you 1400 cals and you burn 600 from exercise, in order to hit you weekly goal you should eat 2000 that day as you 1400 goal is your net goal (2000-600). If you only eat 1400 and burn 600, that would be like eating only 800 calories (1400-600) and not working out, which is not enough for anyone.
'
So, no less is not better.

Why do you think hunger has anything to do with your body needing more or less calories? See my earlier response.

Well I understand why your hunger aspect seems to be reasonable if you are feeling hungry but it seems to break down if you are not feeling hungry.. I still don't understand your reasoning about needing to eat a full 2000 calories if your goal gave you 1400 and you exercise 600. Goals are variable and not a sacred baseline, I can put in one pound a week or one and a half, so it seems that if my goal is one pound and I still have calories left than I just got closer to a pound and a half goal not necessarily a burn of muscle.
I know that the less fat you have then the easier it would be to get into a damage mode by exercising but it seems that would not apply unless you were below a healthy weight to start with. I think to aggressive of a goal is bad because it can shift you into a metabolic "starvation" prevention mode. Am I misinformed on this?

Not if you follow MFP, MFP ignores your planned exercise when assigning a caloric intake to lose your goal amount of weight, so when you exercise you need to eat more to hit your non-exercise calorie goal.

The other option is setting a higher goal than MFP gives you to average out your planned exercise for the week.

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.