Eating back your calories rant.

However the point that I was trying to make and seemed to have got missed is that people have been telling me to eat back my calories even when they were over estimated and when I didn't really have to.

I just wanted to add the reading from the hrm was an exact calorie match to the machine that I was using to exercise on. So its 100% accurate!!

No one told you to eat more calories than you burned, and no one ever said mfp was the best place to estimate calories burned.

Nothing is 100% accurate.

I used to try and eat all my exercise calories back and follow the rules closely, but I realised everything is just an estimate. The computers best guess. It is a guess on how active we are. It is a guess on how many calories are in a specific amount of food. And it is a guess as to how many calories we burn. So follow principles instead and moniter your results.

I made my own rules. I set my MFP to lose 1 pound a week, so I have a lovely 1340 calories to eat a day. I try to earn 500 calories a day in exercise a day. If I eat my 1340 and leave my 500 I should lose 2 pounds a week. So I let give my self flex and choice everyday depending on how hungry I am. Eating between 1340 and 1840 and I should have success either way. Neither extreem or restrictive. I usually find I am full around 1500 calories, more or less.

Each person has to figure this one out themselves. What is healthy, what is easy to maintain for you?

good topic

The problem is, you aren't talking about your REAL exercise calories burned, so your argument is flawed. The fact that the heart monitor said you burned less than what MFP says simply implies that you CAN'T just go on a loose estimate and then eat whatever calories back that number is. Especially if you have quite a bit of weight to lose.

Mathematically, it's still possible to eat back exercise calories and lose weight. It works for me, but I purposefully underestimate how many calories I burn doing a given activity. (I often hula-hoop and do kundalini yoga, for example, and I base my calories burned off various estimates I found online for my body weight, and then go off a bit lower number.)

It's all abut accuracy. While it may be true that eating back only half of your exercise calories is fine if you're hungry and eating 1700 a day, it changes a bit when you're someone like me who only eats 1200 a day before exercising. I burn lot of calories and I have a fast metabolism, so when I don't eat back most of mine, I get a lot of bad side-effects. And I lose weight quite quickly as long as I'm staying at a good net.

Different things work for different people, but usually it's the math that's flawed and not the method.

I guess you really didn't have much weight to lose to start off with? So don't judge your experience on mine. The fact is I have over 200lbs to lose and I have been told by a professional that I don't need to eat my calories back. Regardless of your mathematically gibberish I will stick to what the professionals tell me and after all they know best!

Also as stated in another post the HRM matched the calories burned on the machine that I was using. Use your Mathematical skills on that one and come up with an answer!!

I never read your last thread but i can perhaps see why a lot of people seemed to turn on you - your replies are quite aggressive and really inviting people to have a go at you. Don't be so defensive and chill out a bit

You admited yourself you were over estimating your calories burned so your net was higher than you throught and that is probably why your weight loss stagnated. Is your net that matters so no don't eat your calories back especially if you're not hungry- keep them in the bank for a rainy day.

SMH

The question of whether or not to "eat back exercise" calories depends on how you do the accounting. If you're eating TDEE-deifict (which is the common/standard way the non-MFP world does it, and more than likely what your trainer had in mind for you), then no, you don't eat them back. If you're using the MFP numbers, where exercise is factored out of the equation, then you eat them back to keep the deficit steady.

It just comes down to implementing a healthy calorie deficit. You can do the "bookkeeping" however is most convenient for you.

Actually the more I think about it, the more I think MFP should just surrender and switch the whole system over to TDEE-based. The "eating back calories" concept is just a source of too much confusion for many people and leads to misguided threads like these.

The problem is, you aren't talking about your REAL exercise calories burned, so your argument is flawed. The fact that the heart monitor said you burned less than what MFP says simply implies that you CAN'T just go on a loose estimate and then eat whatever calories back that number is. Especially if you have quite a bit of weight to lose.

Mathematically, it's still possible to eat back exercise calories and lose weight. It works for me, but I purposefully underestimate how many calories I burn doing a given activity. (I often hula-hoop and do kundalini yoga, for example, and I base my calories burned off various estimates I found online for my body weight, and then go off a bit lower number.)

It's all abut accuracy. While it may be true that eating back only half of your exercise calories is fine if you're hungry and eating 1700 a day, it changes a bit when you're someone like me who only eats 1200 a day before exercising. I burn lot of calories and I have a fast metabolism, so when I don't eat back most of mine, I get a lot of bad side-effects. And I lose weight quite quickly as long as I'm staying at a good net.

Different things work for different people, but usually it's the math that's flawed and not the method.

I guess you really didn't have much weight to lose to start off with? So don't judge your experience on mine. The fact is I have over 200lbs to lose and I have been told by a professional that I don't need to eat my calories back. Regardless of your mathematically gibberish I will stick to what the professionals tell me and after all they know best!

Also as stated in another post the HRM matched the calories burned on the machine that I was using. Use your Mathematical skills on that one and come up with an answer!!

I never read your last thread but i can perhaps see why a lot of people seemed to turn on you - your replies are quite aggressive and really inviting people to have a go at you. Don't be so defensive and chill out a bit

You admited yourself you were over estimating your calories burned so your net was higher than you throught and that is probably why your weight loss stagnated. Is your net that matters so no don't eat your calories back especially if you're not hungry- keep them in the bank for a rainy day.

^This. In particular the part about the aggressive replies--I would actually say that the OP's response to this person describing the "math" thing was quite rude...I'm sorry if you didn't like the responses to your "rant" about why you personally don't eat exercise calories back, but wow...if you don't want a variety of responses (some of which you may not agree with and many which are simply based on individuals' various experiences) DON'T post on a public message board. Just message your friends individually and your professional person (trainer?) to get the answers you want to hear.

sheesh.

I've heard so many conflicting opinions...
I have heard from fitness friends to eat them back but then not to eat them back from a doctor and a personal trainer.
Then a nutritionist told me to eat at my goal and then eat some of my exercise calories back when I am hungry.

It's honestly an experiment.
See what works for you and what doesn't.

As long as you're feeding yourself good foods, make sure you're not tired/hungry all the time and that you're feeling better and more energetic... I don't see a problem eating them back or not.

I personally don't eat them back unless I am hungry but I never eat back all of them due to the fact that I don't have a HRM yet.
I feel more energetic then ever and I am losing weight at a good speed. Around 2lbs a week.

I try to never eat my calories back! I am here to lose weight and if I ate them back I wouldnt lose. I also occassionally fall under my calories goal but as long as Im not hungry, it doesnt bother me because I know I am eating healthy and my tummy is not growling. Once I get closer to my goal weight, I will worry more about that. Do what is right for you.

Like everything on the 'net, you have to take it with a grain of salt.

I don't eat back my exercise calories.
I eat 1400 not what MFP has given me.
I don't use the calories MFP says I burnt (my hrm is hundreds off the calories here)
My goal is to lose weight and I'm exercising to lose & tone not so I can continue face feeding.
I don't go to bed hungry but I'm not going to eat just to get my calories in.
When I'm closer to my goal, I'll re evaluate things.

You have to do what's right for you and if folks here don't like it, it's their problem.

Whew! There's a lot of bad advice in this thread. There's a lot of bad advice out there in general, but I would encourage any new users to step away from this thread and look for people on here who have been successful in losing and maintaining their weight loss, and get advice from those people. Then take that advice with healthy skepticism and research for yourself what you are being advised to do. Many of the successful MFP old-timers have a pay-it-forward attitude and are happy to share tips that helped them. Newcomers with a chip on their shoulder are not the best source for tips on successful weight loss strategies.

SMH

The question of whether or not to "eat back exercise" calories depends on how you do the accounting. If you're eating TDEE-deifict (which is the common/standard way the non-MFP world does it, and more than likely what your trainer had in mind for you), then no, you don't eat them back. If you're using the MFP numbers, where exercise is factored out of the equation, then you eat them back to keep the deficit steady.

It just comes down to implementing a healthy calorie deficit. You can do the "bookkeeping" however is most convenient for you.

Actually the more I think about it, the more I think MFP should just surrender and switch the whole system over to TDEE-based. The "eating back calories" concept is just a source of too much confusion for many people and leads to misguided threads like these.

this. TDEE system and the "MFP" system is different. When you take out the factors that makes MFP, MFP. it is actually the same. Following TDEE, you eat at that particular recommended calorie intake for weight loss, whether you exercise or not (you don't eat back the exercise cals). For MFP, they have a formula that takes exercising into account so that you actually exercise and feel like you achieved something (besides a fit body lol) so that you aren't just limiting cals for dieting, but also toning up and being healthy overall with exercise. According to TDEE I should be eating 1400-1500 each day. Following MFP, i am on a 1200 cal diet, and since I exercise and eat exercise cals back, my gross intake would be around 1300-1500. So really, the difference is almost negligible. Nevertheless, MFP helps you see what you are eating etc, and gives you a choice what you want to do about it. People choose what works for them, and since we are all different, what works for them, may not work for you.

Starvation Mode: Dispelling the Myths If you've been on a diet, you've surely heard about it. The dreaded starvation mode. How many people have said to you, "be careful not to dip below 1200 calories. Your body will go into starvation mode and you'll gain weight." Or, what about, "Oh, you're not eating enough, that's why you're not losing weight. Your body is in starvation mode." A frightful sounding thing indeed. It seems like a dieter just can't win. If they eat too much, they won't lose weight. If they eat too little, they won't lose weight. Can all this really be true? The simple answer is no. Starvation mode has been embellished so much that it's almost a complete lie at this point. So what is starvation mode really? Starvation mode, more formally known as famine response, is part of your body's survival mechanism. When you aren't getting a sufficient amount of calories to run your body, your body does indeed fall into famine response, because normally, when one isn't eating, it's because there is nothing to eat. Starvation mode slows down the body's metabolism to try and save as much energy as it can. It also breaks down muscle, but I'll go into that a bit later. So, yes, famine response, or starvation mode, does slow down your metabolism and does break down muscle, but that's where the truth ends and the embellishment begins. Firstly, starvation mode is not something that kicks in automatically. If you skip a day of eating, your body is not going to freak out and drop your metabolism to a slow crawl. Starvation mode kicks in after continuous fasting or severe calorie restriction, usually longer than a week, but at least 3 days. If you've fasted, or restricted calories severely, you know the feelings of hunger pangs and how horrible they were. That's your body saying, "Eat. I need fuel." Since your body is telling you to eat, it believes there is still food to be eaten, so no starvation mode yet. When the hunger subsides, usually after about 3 to 5 days, your body has decided to there must not be food and uses alternative energy sources. This is a good indication that starvation mode is not far away. People also believe that starvation mode will make you gain weight. This is essentially false. Starvation mode does slow down the metabolism, but if you are eating so little that starvation mode has set in, you are not going to gain weight. The percentage by which the metabolism slows down, which can be as much as 40 percent, does not overshadow the calorie deficit. All it means is that, if you are eating 500 calories a day, and you are supposed to get 2000, you should lose 3 pounds a week with your metabolism running normally. Let's say your metabolism dropped 30 percent. You would have a basal metabolic rate of 1400 calories a day instead, and so you would lose 1.8 pounds a week instead. Considerably fewer amounts of weight, but you would still lose weight. You can not gain weight by taking in fewer calories a day. It does not make sense scientifically, especially if you understand physics. Let's get back to the muscle loss, because that is concerning to most people. Starvation mode does cause muscle loss, partially because it is getting rid of something that uses a lot of energy and partially because it needs protein, which it takes from the muscle. However, what most people don't know is that every diet causes muscle loss, even healthy ones. A healthy lower of calories, that is a 500 calorie deficit, will cause 75 percent fat loss and 25 percent muscle loss. Starvation diets cause a 50 percent fat loss, and a 50 percent muscle loss, however, this has two main causes. The body is not getting enough protein, and people eating small amounts of food, or no food, usually do not have the energy to do strength training. Not that the Atkin's Diet pushes the body into starvation mode, but does not cause excessive muscle loss. This is because Atkin's followers get massive amounts of proteins and so the body does not need to take protein from the muscles and most do strength training, to prevent excessive muscle loss. It works. They end up with the more average 75/25 fat/muscle loss ratio. So, if a person eating 500 calories a day ate it all in protein, and had the strength to do some strength training, they would conceivably end up with a 75/25 ratio as well, or at least something close to that. This is all very interesting, you think, but why should I believe you? Your just a random person writing on the internet. Good point. Let me give you some examples. First, basic anatomy. The body uses glucose as fuel. Well, no food equals no glucose. So what does the body do? It breaks down fat. It has to break down fat because it uses the glycerol there to fuel the body. There is no possible way for the body not to break down fat, because it would die otherwise. It also uses the ketones produced by the breakdown of fats to fuel the brain, and the brain is obviously very important. There's also the Minnesota Semi-Starvation Study, that took place in 1944. The men ended up losing 25% of their starting body weights, even though their metabolisms slowed by 40 percent, and they were of average weight to begin with. Anorectics, who impose starvation on themselves, also disprove most of the starvation mode myths. They do not gain weight or stay the same. They continue to lose weight, even though they are severely underweight. Finally, Very Low Calorie Diets are used by physicians to treat obesity in some cases, and these diets are typically under 800 calories daily. There you have it. The reality of starvation mode. Not nearly as frightening as made out to be. Of course, I don't support starvation type diets, and these will make you gain weight. Most likely because you will be very hungry, and most people do not have the willpower to consistently eat very little and will end up binging, and yes, your body will hold on to those calories because it has already depleted some of its storage, and you will gain weight. Furthermore, starvation diets tend not to give your body enough nutrients. Did you know a potassium deficiency can cause a heart attack? Not something you want to play around with. That being said, if you drop below your calories for a day, you don't have to fear a dead metabolism and rapid weight gain.

I dont eat my calories back, i exercise more if i think ive eaten too much

or sometimes if i really want to eat something ill burn calories off in advance

I do NOT eat mine back. I will burn on some days over 1000 (according to MFP) and I only eat around 800 or 900 a day. Phoooy on eating them back. I'm here to lose not exercise so I can eat more. I do want to get a HRM and may just get it for Christmas. But if I'm hungry I'm going to eat no matter where I'm at with my calorie count.

^^^THIS^^^^