eating back the calories you burn

If you are following MFP the way it's designed, you eat them.

+1

This is good to know because I have heard both ways too. Thanks for asking and sharing.

You've heard correct on both accounts...it just depends on the method.

You have to understand the method...MFP is designed for you to eat back exercise calories because you do NOT include an estimate of that activity in your activity level. It is unaccounted for and must be accounted for somewhere...with MFP, that somewhere is after the fact when you log it. Just be very careful not to over estimate your burn. I would strongly suggest that you only eat a % of your calorie burn to account for estimation error. I would also suggest comparing your burn to a few different sources, especially if you're using a data base like MFP...your burn will be hugely inflated with most data bases.

Other calculators, trainers, nutritionist, etc generally use what is known as the TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) method where an estimate of your total activity, including exercise activity is included up front in the equation when you select your activity level.

My numbers at a glance...

MFP maintenance with NO exercise = 2,350 calories. To lose 1 Lb per week, MFP takes a 500 calorie cut giving me 1,850 calories. If I exercise and lets say I burn 400 calories...MfP's new weight loss calorie goal for me would be 2,250 calories. I still have the same 500 calorie net deficit though because now my new maintenance would be 2,750 calories and 2,750 - 2,350 = 500.

MFP is designed to eat them back. Probably as an incentive to exercise.

Small word of caution - most apps, including MFP overestimate my burns in comparison to my hrm. I log my hrm cals.

So if you work with MFP exercise estimations, eat them back and don't lose as much as you want to....only eat 2/3 back. That worked for me.

Don't eat them back until you get validation that your burn estimates are reasonably correct. Over-eating exercise calories is a HUGE contributor to stalls in the MFP community, ESPECIALLY by people using HRMs.

The harsh reality is that most people on here are not doing enough exercise to warrant eating them back anyway.

accuracy of calories in calories out is really what its all about,

but i think the important thing to take away is that (assuming the numbers are all accurate for your body) the defciet need to reach your goal in your chosen amount of time (on MFP) is automaticaly built into your NET calories when eating back your exercise calories.

If you do not eat them back, your eating at the defceit, minus whatever you burned exercising.

Eat them back, dont eat them back, you will lose weight (assuming everything else is accurate).

But if you don't eat them back the chances of you losing lean body mass go up.

thats pretty much the long and short of it

From my understanding of it you eat back your calories, BUT - always a but. You need to realize that no matter what you're doing, you're burning calories. Your HRM does not distinct between the 2. The HRM monitor is unable to differentiate the amount of calories you normally burn, and give you the calories burned from the activity you just performed.

For instance say I sit on my *kitten* for 1 hr watching the tv while I have the HRM monitor actively recording. It records the calorie burned by the info I put into it, weight, resting HR etc. So for that hour it says I've burned 300 calories just by breathing and watching TV. You take that 300 cal per hr and divide the 300 by 60 for the minutes in the hour. It ends up equaling to 5 cal/min.

I will use that as my baseline for my HRM work outs. So say I go walking for 30 min and the HRM says I've burned 415 cal. So take the # of min and multiply it by 5, IE: 5 x 30 = 150 base cal. take the 150 and subtract it from the 415 IE: 415 - 150 = 265 cal for the 30 min I walked. I would consider the 265 calories the amount that I could eat back. The other 150 calories is included as a "base burn" calories you burn whether or not you do anything extra. I've noticed people state that they've burned 800 calories for 45 min of walking, and they eat that 800 cal back in it's entirety without knowing that a certain percentage of that is actually not calories burned during the activity but burned by just being alive.

All be it I am new to this whole healthy eating and exercise stuff, and this is just my opinion and the conclusion I have gathered from the sources I have read since I have started this journey. If I'm incorrect in any of the above please correct me. Would rather be corrected and go ahead with the right knowledge.

Thanks for all your helpful responses! I have not been eating them back, in fact, I am not eating enough when I exercise. Maybe that could be a reason why I haven't lost weight for 2 or 3 weeks?

Do you have a food scale? Do you measure out liquids in cups? You may be eating more than you think.

The whole thing can be broken down to a very simple thing.

Should i eat my exercise calories back?

I don't know, are you hungry?

If yes, then do it, if no, then why are you eating, that's how we got here.

If we ate back all the calories the body burns we'd be at maintenance is only true if your mfp account is set to maintenance, otherwise the deficit is already in there.

To me it's fairly silly not to eat them back but the trick is to estimate them accurately. If you want to lose weight more quickly, the way to go about it is to lower your caloric target for the week - not to ignore your caloric burn from exercise. It doesn't make a lot of sense to run a more aggressive caloric deficit on weeks when you are active than on weeks when you don't get off the couch.

I burn about 700 cals a day or 650 and i eat 1100 and im staying at 115-117. im 5'3 also and 22 yrs old

You're saying your maintenance is 400-450 calories a day?

...assuming the numbers are all accurate for your body...

Unfortunately, that' s not a good assumption. We know that people, in general, are even worse at estimating calorie burns than they are at estimating calorie intake.

And like clockwork, we get an example of that from the Land of Impossibility...

I burn about 700 cals a day or 650 and i eat 1100 and im staying at 115-117. im 5'3 also and 22 yrs old...

No, sorry, you don't. 400 net calories a day is half the net calories provided to concentration camp prisoners. If you were truly doing that, your body would start looking like the body of a concentration camp survivor.

I am pretty sure I am counting my food calories accurately, but possibly not my exercise calories. It doesn't make sense though because I have been eating just under 1200 calories and exercise 45 to 50 minutes a day on weekdays and I haven't lost weight for 2 weeks. I am eating healthy too and I just eat when I'm hungry.

Two weeks is not enough time to determine whether or not a system is working for you, especially once you factor in the extra water weight your body tends to hold when you start a new exercise program, which can mask any fat loss that's happening in the background.

Unfortunately, hunger is one of the least reliable methods to be sure that you're getting enough to eat. The hormones that control hunger can be suppressed by a number of different factors, including undereating.

When you say that you're "pretty sure" that you're counting food calories accurately, does that mean you're using a well-calibrated food scale?

I am pretty sure I am counting my food calories accurately, but possibly not my exercise calories. It doesn't make sense though because I have been eating just under 1200 calories and exercise 45 to 50 minutes a day on weekdays and I haven't lost weight for 2 weeks. I am eating healthy too and I just eat when I'm hungry.

Two weeks is not enough time to determine whether or not a system is working for you, especially once you factor in the extra water weight your body tends to hold when you start a new exercise program, which can mask any fat loss that's happening in the background.

Unfortunately, hunger is one of the least reliable methods to be sure that you're getting enough to eat. The hormones that control hunger can be suppressed by a number of different factors, including undereating.

When you say that you're "pretty sure" that you're counting food calories accurately, does that mean you're using a well-calibrated food scale?

agree that you need to give it more time. sometimes the ball doesn't really start to get rolling for a month or a month and a half, even when things are basically perfect calories wise.