Eating back exercised calories VS not: Which worked for you?

@ Smithkulaga - congratulations on your accomplishments so far!!!

When I first started out I was doing aqua aerobics and estimated that I was burning about 300 - 400 calories a class. After several months of aqua aerobics, I was able to do more and started doing 2 classes in a row a few times a week which was aqua aerobics and zumba. I estimated (based on what I found on different websites) that Zumba was burning about 500 - 600 calories. From there I started doing weights and spinning.

A few months ago I purchased a heart rate monitor (at the advice of my trainer and several instructors i know) and discovered that I was overestimating my burned calories with Zumba especially. I really only burn about 350 - 400 calories a class. My heart rate monitor has been the best investment in my weight loss journey. It is like a personal trainer on your wrist. It calculates your calories based on your personal height, weight and heart rate. Now I know when I burn 1000 calories, I really am. I don't work out w/out it.

When it comes to me...

I knew that the introduction of an additional deficit would create a need for additional fuel, but I chose to take a kind of 'scientist'-like 'approach', initially, out of curiosity, to see what my body would 'dictate', when it came to eating back calories, and specifically, how much it 'wanted', and whether there was a remaining deficit, and if so, how much, and whether any kind of 'pattern' might possibly 'emerge'.

So... I simply 'listened' to my body -- and while I tracked and was aware of how much was being 'eaten back', I was mindful of the fact that I considered it a learning experience, when it came to my body, and couldn't help wondering what my body would seemingly 'deem necessary', so to speak, when it came to this.

What I learned, is that my body seems to 'know' that it needs more fuel, and 'lets me know', accordingly -- and that the most it seems 'comfortable' in 'allowing', when it comes to any net deficit, relative to the exercise calories burned, is no more than a few hundred calories (and even that much was only on days when I'd burned over 2000 calories). On the various days when I burned over 2000 calories, I experienced a new 'issue' -- eating as much fuel as my body let me know it wanted, but not spending forever engaged in the act of eating (what a luxurious problem to suddenly have! lol ) -- and given the constraint of not wanting to take in more than ~600-700 calories at a shot (on such exercise calorie-deficit days (I otherwise don't want to take in more than ~350-450 calories in a 'meal')), I embraced the bang-for-the-buck calorie content and nutrition profile of nut butters, and went for nut butters on whole grain bread, and also discovered guilt-free ingestion of chocolate milk and ice cream...

Bottom line -- I'll give my body 'back' what it deems necessary, in the wake of exercise calorie deficits (and I know that it will want almost all of those calories back (and I understand why that is))... and am especially aware of the higher calorie intake that will be required on days when I burn a previously-atypical-for-me multiple of such a deficit (and am learning to 'prep' for such days, by having things onhand (or otherwise knowing that I'll be able to give myself a 'green light'), when it comes to things I normally would restrict myself to on limited occasions, knowing that on high-calorie deficit days, I can experience an added joy of eating various things for which the otherwise-cause-for-concern calorie content is actually providing a 'benefit', so to speak).

I've done both, and both work.

The approaches are different, but the ultimate goal should be the same - a healthy, sustainable calorie and macro intake.

I agree with you, but I want to clear up what you said so there is no confusion. I am pretty sure you're saying, you have done the MFP method (eating back your calories) and you have also calculated your own calorie deficit and determined the calories to eat with out eating exercise calories back.

What you said could easily be confused with "don't eat back your exercise calories following the MFP method." Which would put someone to low.

Yes, it might. But it might also put some people right where they need to be because they suck at estimating, which is why I added the last line about the end games being the same.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter how you estimate, what you log, or how much you eat back as long as you end up with a reasonably healthy calorie and macro intake.

Why are you listening to a fitness trainer for nutritional advice?

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/818082-exercise-calories-again-wtf

Edit: Since it's been made quite apparent that people can't be bothered to actually go to a link that is posted I'll give a simple answer here.

MFP assumes you're not going to do any exercise so it gives you a calorie goal with a deficit already built in. So you'll lose weight even without exercise. When you exercise, you further increase that deficit to a possibly unhealthy level. Fuel your body.

The link is too complicated for a beginner.

OP: There are 2 methods.

1.You eat back your calories(MFP)
2. You don't eat them back(you calculated your own TDEE and deficit)

More than likely you didn't do step 2, so stick to step 1 (eat back your calories).

The link is too complicated for a beginner or for you...? :huh:

Basic reading comprehension is all that is required to understand that link.

For a beginner, I have been doing this for a long time, that's newbie stuff to me... Below in bold are excerpts from the link... below that is possible questions that... a beginner might have.
EAT (Exercise Associated Thermogenesis): Caloric requirements of training, or training expenditure.

Whats the difference from calorie requirement of training, or training expenditure? What training expenditure, is this calories burned or exercises performed? What is being expended?

"If you are using most other online calculation tools to determine an intake estimate, that estimate is going to already include EAT as part of the suggested intake"

Wait, what is EAT again???

Why would some ask what EAT is again when they can refer back up to the top of the post where the (oh hai) list of definitions is? Also, you took sentences from a paragraph. Context. Matters.


Your blatant problem with any links other than yours (namely anything that comes from the Eat, Train, Progess group) is really appalling and quite sad.

Go show it to any beginner. They won't get it much. The reason they would need to refer back to it is that they don't fully understand it. If it was for a more advanced member, i wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't have a problem with that group...

I link it to beginners all the time and they've gotten it.

The reason that they would need to refer back to what? The definition of EAT? It's at the top of the post. They just have to look up a few lines to re-read that definition that you apparently think they would forget within two seconds of reading. I think that you're seriously underestimating that average intelligence of people on this site.

@ Smithkulaga - congratulations on your accomplishments so far!!!

When I first started out I was doing aqua aerobics and estimated that I was burning about 300 - 400 calories a class. After several months of aqua aerobics, I was able to do more and started doing 2 classes in a row a few times a week which was aqua aerobics and zumba. I estimated (based on what I found on different websites) that Zumba was burning about 500 - 600 calories. From there I started doing weights and spinning.

A few months ago I purchased a heart rate monitor (at the advice of my trainer and several instructors i know) and discovered that I was overestimating my burned calories with Zumba especially. I really only burn about 350 - 400 calories a class. My heart rate monitor has been the best investment in my weight loss journey. It is like a personal trainer on your wrist. It calculates your calories based on your personal height, weight and heart rate. Now I know when I burn 1000 calories, I really am. I don't work out w/out it.

Any suggestions on a heart rate monitor brand? I'd love to get one that is super accurate!

They are all just estimates, and there is no way to guarantee that any one is going to be more or less accurate than any other. If you believe the hype, the new Garmins are using a pretty advanced formula, so in theory it'll be more accurate more often. But ultimately even that is an estimate.

Anything from Garmin, Suunto or Polar will be good quality. Then it just comes down to finding the one with the features you want.

Why are you listening to a fitness trainer for nutritional advice?

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/818082-exercise-calories-again-wtf

Edit: Since it's been made quite apparent that people can't be bothered to actually go to a link that is posted I'll give a simple answer here.

MFP assumes you're not going to do any exercise so it gives you a calorie goal with a deficit already built in. So you'll lose weight even without exercise. When you exercise, you further increase that deficit to a possibly unhealthy level. Fuel your body.

The link is too complicated for a beginner.

OP: There are 2 methods.

1.You eat back your calories(MFP)
2. You don't eat them back(you calculated your own TDEE and deficit)

More than likely you didn't do step 2, so stick to step 1 (eat back your calories).

The link is too complicated for a beginner or for you...? :huh:

Basic reading comprehension is all that is required to understand that link.

For a beginner, I have been doing this for a long time, that's newbie stuff to me... Below in bold are excerpts from the link... below that is possible questions that... a beginner might have.
EAT (Exercise Associated Thermogenesis): Caloric requirements of training, or training expenditure.

Whats the difference from calorie requirement of training, or training expenditure? What training expenditure, is this calories burned or exercises performed? What is being expended?

"If you are using most other online calculation tools to determine an intake estimate, that estimate is going to already include EAT as part of the suggested intake"

Wait, what is EAT again???

Why would some ask what EAT is again when they can refer back up to the top of the post where the (oh hai) list of definitions is? Also, you took sentences from a paragraph. Context. Matters.


Your blatant problem with any links other than yours (namely anything that comes from the Eat, Train, Progess group) is really appalling and quite sad.

In response to all of this:

I'm taking nutritional advice from my trainer because he's also a nutritionist. He also has had so many clients lose weight successfully so naturally, I want to follow his lead. A few years ago I was following MFP as I should (eating back the cals) but not for long enough to see any major results.

I also don't consider myself a beginner. My question sounds basic because I've been following this plan with my trainer for a year and I lost sight of the common sense of it all. I wanted to see if there was any merit to his plan, or if from this point I should start ignoring his advice and eating back those lost cals.

Guys, don't argue.Different methods clearly work for different people. I appreciate both of your input and I think I will go the route of eating back most of the calories. I eat so healthy right now that it's hard to even hit 1200, so I'll be restructuring my food with my new workout routine.

Oh look, PU.

I'll wait.

Why are you listening to a fitness trainer for nutritional advice?



http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/818082-exercise-calories-again-wtf


Edit: Since it's been made quite apparent that people can't be bothered to actually go to a link that is posted I'll give a simple answer here.

MFP assumes you're not going to do any exercise so it gives you a calorie goal with a deficit already built in. So you'll lose weight even without exercise. When you exercise, you further increase that deficit to a possibly unhealthy level. Fuel your body.

+1

I have experimented with both and find my body responds better (weight loss wise) to not eating them back. I may go over at time by 100 cals but really try to stay around the 1200. Everyone is different and different things work for different people, so you have to really listen to what your body is telling you, and perhaps getting nutrition advice from a registered dietician rather than a personal trainer may help. Good luck.

Each person's body responds different.. I recommend trial and error you have already done the 1200 cal for almost a year add 300 to 400 more cals for 3 weeks see what happens.

I would watch out with eating back all of the workout calories. MFP was telling me that I was burning 1000 calories doing an hour of elliptical, so I would naturally eat those calories back. Just recently compared the data from MFP to a more accurate PolarFT4 Heart Rate Monitor's estimate of the calories burned. It was 425. Less than half of what MFP had told me. That means that I was eating way over what I had burned and working against my weight loss goal.

Why are you listening to a fitness trainer for nutritional advice?

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/818082-exercise-calories-again-wtf

Edit: Since it's been made quite apparent that people can't be bothered to actually go to a link that is posted I'll give a simple answer here.

MFP assumes you're not going to do any exercise so it gives you a calorie goal with a deficit already built in. So you'll lose weight even without exercise. When you exercise, you further increase that deficit to a possibly unhealthy level. Fuel your body.

The link is too complicated for a beginner.

OP: There are 2 methods.

1.You eat back your calories(MFP)
2. You don't eat them back(you calculated your own TDEE and deficit)

More than likely you didn't do step 2, so stick to step 1 (eat back your calories).

The link is too complicated for a beginner or for you...? :huh:

Basic reading comprehension is all that is required to understand that link.

For a beginner, I have been doing this for a long time, that's newbie stuff to me... Below in bold are excerpts from the link... below that is possible questions that... a beginner might have.
EAT (Exercise Associated Thermogenesis): Caloric requirements of training, or training expenditure.

Whats the difference from calorie requirement of training, or training expenditure? What training expenditure, is this calories burned or exercises performed? What is being expended?

"If you are using most other online calculation tools to determine an intake estimate, that estimate is going to already include EAT as part of the suggested intake"

Wait, what is EAT again???

Why would some ask what EAT is again when they can refer back up to the top of the post where the (oh hai) list of definitions is? Also, you took sentences from a paragraph. Context. Matters.


Your blatant problem with any links other than yours (namely anything that comes from the Eat, Train, Progess group) is really appalling and quite sad.

Go show it to any beginner. They won't get it much. The reason they would need to refer back to it is that they don't fully understand it. If it was for a more advanced member, i wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't have a problem with that group...

There are a number of beginners who have PM'd me to thank me for writing that link and I have not yet heard ANYONE ask me additional questions or ask for additional clarifications for anything in that link.

Having said that, my experience tells me that your assumptions are wrong.

Why are you listening to a fitness trainer for nutritional advice?



http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/818082-exercise-calories-again-wtf


Edit: Since it's been made quite apparent that people can't be bothered to actually go to a link that is posted I'll give a simple answer here.

MFP assumes you're not going to do any exercise so it gives you a calorie goal with a deficit already built in. So you'll lose weight even without exercise. When you exercise, you further increase that deficit to a possibly unhealthy level. Fuel your body.

Agreed. .Use a HRM to get a decent estimate of calories burned and maybe increase your calorie intake when working out.

You should eat more on training days. Period. Not necessarily all of your calories should be eaten that you have earned but some. How else is your body going to build that muscle mass or shred that fat without the energy provided by food? You need food for all body function - including shredding fat.

Why are you listening to a fitness trainer for nutritional advice?

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/818082-exercise-calories-again-wtf

Edit: Since it's been made quite apparent that people can't be bothered to actually go to a link that is posted I'll give a simple answer here.

MFP assumes you're not going to do any exercise so it gives you a calorie goal with a deficit already built in. So you'll lose weight even without exercise. When you exercise, you further increase that deficit to a possibly unhealthy level. Fuel your body.

The link is too complicated for a beginner.

OP: There are 2 methods.

1.You eat back your calories(MFP)
2. You don't eat them back(you calculated your own TDEE and deficit)

More than likely you didn't do step 2, so stick to step 1 (eat back your calories).

The link is too complicated for a beginner or for you...? :huh:

Basic reading comprehension is all that is required to understand that link.

For a beginner, I have been doing this for a long time, that's newbie stuff to me... Below in bold are excerpts from the link... below that is possible questions that... a beginner might have.
EAT (Exercise Associated Thermogenesis): Caloric requirements of training, or training expenditure.

Whats the difference from calorie requirement of training, or training expenditure? What training expenditure, is this calories burned or exercises performed? What is being expended?

"If you are using most other online calculation tools to determine an intake estimate, that estimate is going to already include EAT as part of the suggested intake"

Wait, what is EAT again???

Why would some ask what EAT is again when they can refer back up to the top of the post where the (oh hai) list of definitions is? Also, you took sentences from a paragraph. Context. Matters.


Your blatant problem with any links other than yours (namely anything that comes from the Eat, Train, Progess group) is really appalling and quite sad.

Go show it to any beginner. They won't get it much. The reason they would need to refer back to it is that they don't fully understand it. If it was for a more advanced member, i wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't have a problem with that group...

What we really need is some kind of graph with arbitrary #'s that will decide if you should or should not eat your calories back.

You should eat more on training days. Period. Not necessarily all of your calories should be eaten that you have earned but some. How else is your body going to build that muscle mass or shred that fat without the energy provided by food? You need food for all body function - including shredding fat.

Ah, more absolutes. Probably the easiest way to know who to ignore is when people talk in definites and absolutes.

I absolutely agree with you

You...I like you