do I really need to eat back 1800 calories?

That 1800 calorie for the run may not be accurate as well. Best method, which still isn't 100% accurate is to use HRM with chest strap.

But even burning 50-75% of that, you definitely need to eat more.

My method is to eat back until I feel satisfied. I try not to under-eat or over-eat. I think of this as training for the long term.

My method - I never eat back exercise calories no matter what the self-Appointed MFP Food Police or self-Appointed MFP doctors say or think.

So, according to you, assuming that the food logging is accurate and the calories burned is accurate, eating 1600 calories and then burning 1800 calories, therefore netting -200 calories for the day is a long term healthy and manageable solution?

could someone plzz explain. if the idea of losing weight is to BURN more than you eat, y r we suppose to eat back our exercise calories? doesn't that defeat the purpose?

could someone plzz explain. if the idea of losing weight is to BURN more than you eat, y r we suppose to eat back our exercise calories? doesn't that defeat the purpose?

I explained it a little further up. Your calorie goal on MFP is already enough for you to lose weight without any exercise. When you add in exercise the intention is that you would eat the calories burned (whether before or after). It prepares you for maintenance. See my other post a few boxes up.

You want a good workout tomorrow or the next day?

Fuel your workouts.

You just used up a boatload of glucose, you already missed prime time to drink the chocolate milk to aid recovery, but at least have a good sized meal with good amount of carbs and protein to aid repair over night.

And no, not 1800.

From that 1800 must be taken what you were already expected to burn during those hours.

Goals - Daily maintenance figure is what you were expected to burn today without exercise already.
So that / 24 is how many calories per hr were already accounted for you burning.

Figure out how many hrs your workout was and do the math for how many calories you were already expected to burn.

Now take 1800 minus that amount.

What is left is what you burned above and beyond what was already accounted for. Now take 20% off that figure. Log that and eat it back within next 24 hrs.

Be smarter than your body, there are so many reasons why you won't be able to read it correctly. Like dehydrated and you drank a bunch of water, not hungry.
Or messed up electrolyte levels from drinking too much plain water while sweating out lots of sodium and using up lots of potassium, can leave you feeling ill at stomach.

This is where you use your knowledge and recognize you can aid recovery, and keep your deficit already built in to your goal at a reasonable level.
By eating back majority of exercise calories above what you were going to burn anyway.

Probably need to plan the day better too if run was too late.

could someone plzz explain. if the idea of losing weight is to BURN more than you eat, y r we suppose to eat back our exercise calories? doesn't that defeat the purpose?

The purpose is maintain a healthy calorie deficit. Period. Exercise helps increase that deficit and helps with overall health, body composition, etc.

The way MFP is designed, when you fill out your profile it sets a calorie goal for you to reach a day. IF you set it to lose 2 lbs a week, then you calorie deficit is 1000 calories per day. If you burn, let's say, 500 calories with exercise, you have increased the deficit to 1500 for the day.

Healthy weight loss, according to most health and fitness experts, is 2 lbs per week. 2 lbs per week is 7000 calorie deficit or 1000 calories a day. So if you're burning 500 calories and eating under your maintenance level by 1000, then you are trying to lose more than 2 lbs per week. While this will work for a while, when you get to your goal, there is the risk of doing damage to your metabolism from under eating.

TL:DR You're calorie deficit is already set, the way MFP does the math, you are supposed to eat back your exercise calories. If you don't like doing it that way, you can use the TDEE - 20% method (search for it) where exercise is already added in...or use a some other method.

could someone plzz explain. if the idea of losing weight is to BURN more than you eat, y r we suppose to eat back our exercise calories? doesn't that defeat the purpose?

You do want to burn calories, but you also want your body to have enough calories to run on. Your BMR is the base amount of calories your body needs just to keep your heart pumping, your hair growing, everything. If you eat too little, your body doesn't have enough to keep all of these things happening. Once or twice is fine, but if you always eat too little, your body is going to have to turn to other places for fuel, like muscle. Then, it will start to 'cut out' less important things, like hair growth, in an effort to keep you alive. My personal advice is to try and eat back 50% of your exercise calories, more if you've burned enough to drop your 'net' (calories eaten-calories burned) below what your BMR is.

Actually, BMR is considered even more basic than those functions, water management in all the cells and organ usage. Those higher level functions actually use even more energy.

But so true it's easy for body to slow those down. Another big noticeable one when it becomes winter - heat regulation. Since metabolism is heat anyway, if you are colder than normal, body isn't getting enough fuel to raise heat for colder situations.

could someone plzz explain. if the idea of losing weight is to BURN more than you eat, y r we suppose to eat back our exercise calories? doesn't that defeat the purpose?

The easiest way to understand it is:

You eat in a caloric deficit for weight loss period... has nothing to do with exercise.

You exercise for fitness not weight loss so you need to fuel your body for the workouts you are asking it to do. But you may want to invest in a heart rate monitor to get a better estimate of your calories burned... MFP's approach has your deficit built in so when you exercise you are doing that for fitness and are expected to eat those calories burned back...

First off, congrats on the 10 miles!

Second, unless you are very overweight, you probably didn't burn 1800 calories. The actual number will depend on a lot of factors (gender, weight, body fat%, VO2max etc), but 100 cals/mile is an ok rule of thumb.

As far as eating it back, don't stuff yourself tonight, but eat a calorie dense snack. You may find that you are crazy hungry tomorrow, so up your calories then. Once in a while, not eating back a big burn is fine, but I wouldn't make a habit of it if you continue running long distances. You need to fuel yourself, after all.

^This. I'm 20+ lbs above healthy for my weight, and I tend to burn between 100 and 110 calories a mile (more if I'm going faster, less if I'm going slower). Actually MFP's calculations based on speed compare pretty well to what my Garmin says which compares pretty well to online calculators. Running is pretty basic speed/weight/time calculation.

Sometimes after a run I'm not hungry either. But if I don't eat, I usually end up feeling like crap a couple hours later and not recovering well the next day. I've learned to just make myself eat something. If I've already eaten dinner it doesn't have to be super high calories, but even 300 calories of peanut butter on some toast and I won't get into the doldrums later.

All i do know is that my hubby was working out like crazy and not eating back his calories. As soon as he started eating back most of his calories, he started loosing weight steady

I ate 1600 calories today which is right around my goal for each day. I went for a 10 mile run tonight and RunKeeper said I burned 1800 calories. I'm not very hungry I could eat a snack maybe before bed but do I really need to eat back 1800 calories?

I feel like 1800 calories is an overestimation but it all depends on how much you weigh i suppose. All of my calculations suggest that I burn about 1060-1100 calories on a 10 mile run. Regardless, I suggest you just eat a snack and then allow for a treat or two over the next week.

No, you don't. It's up to you.