Replacing Burnt Calories

Options
dmdv22
dmdv22 Posts: 22
in Fitness and Exercise
OK I was just thinking about something and it brought up a question in my mind. I understand you are supposed to eat lost calories. My question is do you replace every burnt calorie by exercise?

I have a goal of losing 1 1/2 pounds a week. I am going to use approximate numbers but in my example MFP says I need to take in 2400 calories to lose approximately that much weight. So in essence just living life I am burning a little over 100 calories an hour isn't that correct? I would ingest 2400 and would burn slightly more than that just living life thereby causing me to lose some weight over the course of time.

If I workout an hour one day and burn about 400 calories I am told I need to eat back those calories. However I feel I actually would have burned 100 just sitting around watching TV so I only burned an extra 300. So in all reality I feel like I should only eat back 300 calories and that 400 calories may cause me to have more calories brought in than actually burned.

I know in the big scheme of things there probably isn't a big difference but I am just trying to grasp the concept.

Replies

  • GSCPostBaby
    GSCPostBaby Posts: 111 Member
    Options
    I have no idea if this train of thought is correct but you should be commended for the abstract way in which you process simple concepts most people take for granted. I'm curious to see what others think about it.
  • MB_Positif
    MB_Positif Posts: 8,897 Member
    Options
    My brain is not right, lol, for some reason I thought this thread was going to have something to do with not eating burnt food. I am an idiot.

    That said, the "science" behind this is that if you are already set to lose weight on MFP that enough of a calorie deficit is already built in to your daily calorie goal. If you don't consume the calories burned through exercise, then your deficit will be too large meaning you are not fueling your body properly for the type of activity you are doing. Does that help? Technically you are supposed to eat "all" of the burned calories but since the numbers are all estimates you don't need to be super picky about it.
  • californiagirl2012
    californiagirl2012 Posts: 2,625 Member
    Options
    We can't tell you what to do. But I don't.

    If you have a lot of body fat reserves you would be surprised at how little you can eat (unless you have emotional eating issues or disorders). The leaner you get the less your body has to draw from and then you have to taper up your calories. There is no such thing as starvation mode for woman over 12% body fat or men over 6% body fat. I pretty much proved that for myself by staying strong and building muscle and doing what I did. I'm the leanest, most muscular, and most fit that I have ever been in my life at almost 52 years old.

    Separating out the the two things worked for me:

    1) Eat less to lose fat.

    2) Exercise to gain or maintain lean body mass.

    Ignore exercise calories because it's insignificant when you don't have to worry about starvation mode anymore and it's highly over rated. Of course you burn energy, but not nearly what any of the devices say you do.

    If you are not doing a weight training routine you need to start one and do it the rest of your life to ward off osteoporosis.

    My full story here http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/740340-i-lost-60-lbs-at-age-51-anyone-can-any-workout
  • chuckyp
    chuckyp Posts: 693 Member
    Options
    The "100 Calories sitting around" is already accounted for in your BMR. So if you work out to burn an additional 400, I would eat back the 400.
  • dmdv22
    dmdv22 Posts: 22
    Options
    Yeah unfortunately that is one of my quirks, take a simple concept and muddle it up by thinking too much. I guess my thought process is that if I went to the gym and burnt 400 calories in an hour, I would need to theoretically eat 2800 calories. My normal 2400 plus my replacement 400.

    However I only burned 300 additional calories(maybe) so in order to lose the correct amount of weight I would have needed to take in 2700 but actually took in 2800 thereby slowing my weight loss.

    I can see why some people don't keep track of burnt calories now. I am not sure of the correct answer but I am definitely interested in others thoughts. Thnks for the inputs.
  • bulbadoof
    bulbadoof Posts: 1,058 Member
    Options
    You are correct, though - MFP doesn't account for calories you would have burned being sedentary. This is one of the myriad of reasons a lot of people opt to eat back 50-75% of their exercise calories instead of the full 100%.
  • asticoral
    asticoral Posts: 99
    Options
    IF I eat any back, its only up to the 50% usually I don't bother

Categories