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

Options
1356

Replies

  • MissMaryMac33
    MissMaryMac33 Posts: 1,433 Member
    Options
    1200 is too low for just about everyone... I'm not sure where that "magical" number came from.


    I eat about half my exercise back just to account for food miscalculation and exercise tracking differences.
    I wear a Polar FT60 so I think the calorie burn is pretty accurate but I would never go by the numbers programmed in MFP.
  • pastryari
    pastryari Posts: 8,646 Member
    Options
    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.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    Gee, who to listen to here?

    If I do a little investigation, sometimes easy here and sometimes not but I conclude that:

    The eater backers more often than not have a profile with some of their pics, either before, after or current. I hardly see any of the 1200 calorie group with them despite some being on this site for 1-3 years.

    Another trend I have noticed is that many of the huge calorie restricters make an "I'm back" announcement which tells me .............. they gained the weight back. They are largely still proponents of the 1200 calorie regimen because "it worked last time" which is false because IF IT HAD worked they wouldn't be back.

    Simple observations.

    ding ding ding ding ding
  • RoseTears143
    RoseTears143 Posts: 1,121 Member
    Options
    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
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    Both. At the same time. Sometimes I eat them back, sometimes I don't. I don't eat a consistent amount of calories each day, but I keep the average in check.
  • NewMnky1
    NewMnky1 Posts: 264
    Options
    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.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    Why are you listening to a fitness trainer for nutritional advice?

    One would hope that a personal trainer would at least have rudimentary knowledge of how nutrition and exercise work. But if you listen to the MFP forums you should listen to no one but those on the MFP forums for nutritional advice. Doctors have no nutrition education. Nutritionists no nothing and usually aren't certified. MFP gives you too few calories. ...
  • Elisirmon
    Elisirmon Posts: 273 Member
    Options
    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.
  • dandelyon
    dandelyon Posts: 620 Member
    Options
    I eat back some but not all, since a lot of my exercise-related calorie tracking is guesswork.
  • wandadars
    wandadars Posts: 25 Member
    Options
    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.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    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.

    That's a very legitimate concern.

    But just to clarify... the problem then is with the estimation, not with the method (eating back cals). The approach is fine, it's how some people do it that screws things up.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    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.
  • ponyskates
    ponyskates Posts: 37
    Options
    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.

    That's a very legitimate concern.

    But just to clarify... the problem then is with the estimation, not with the method (eating back cals). The approach is fine, it's how some people do it that screws things up.

    This is why I have been looking for a good heart rate monitor. As I'm closing in on my goal (and summer) I really want to go all-out with my fitness/food. I would like to be accurate and do the very best by my body.
  • TheEffort
    TheEffort Posts: 1,028 Member
    Options
    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.

    8488541.png
  • fatburnd2012
    fatburnd2012 Posts: 35
    Options
    One of my best friends is schooling to become a personal fitness, and I had the same conversation with me; mind you, he is in shape, if that matters.

    The only thing I could truly come to an understand is this (and its fairly straight forward)...

    If you don't eat, you wont have energy. If you don't have energy, you wont work as hard at the gym. If you don't work as hard at the gym, you wont lose weight -as fast- as you might want to.

    I just think of myself as a machine, in that respect. I need fuel so that I keep trekking. Of course, you need to be feeding yourself at least 'decent' to 'ok' food. Putting dirty fuel in your machine wont let the gears run smoothly either.

    Hard cash for Hard Work!

    I think this is great advice and well explained in laymans terms!
  • jramaral
    jramaral Posts: 13 Member
    Options
    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.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    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.
  • ryry_
    ryry_ Posts: 4,966 Member
    Options
    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.:wink:
  • ryry_
    ryry_ Posts: 4,966 Member
    Options
    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
  • ArroganceInStep
    ArroganceInStep Posts: 6,239 Member
    Options
    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 =)

Categories