Should I be eating back the calories I've worked off?

Options
2

Replies

  • Kiwi_09
    Kiwi_09 Posts: 65
    Options
    What is your activity level set to? If it isn't set to sedentary I wouldn't log things like walking.
    Since your base level is already 1600+ calories a day you may just need to work the logging system better. Either log everything active and lower your base activity level or only log actual work outs. I don't log things like walking, cleaning, working, etc. I'm currently set to gain a pound a week (due to pregnancy) and my target is 2200 calories so unless you're doing a hard work out each day you probably shouldn't be going over 2000 calories.

    Also, when you log activities do you use a HRM? Most of the machines at the gym aren't accurate, and usually say you're burning more than you are. Investing in a HRM could really help too.

    TLDR version: Eat back your calories, but make sure you're logging everything correctly.
  • ME0172
    ME0172 Posts: 200
    Options

    Also, when you log activities do you use a HRM? Most of the machines at the gym aren't accurate, and usually say you're burning more than you are. Investing in a HRM could really help too.

    This is a VERY good point.
  • alexamaeparker
    alexamaeparker Posts: 5 Member
    Options
    I should have been more clear! I gained back weight when I wasn't logging anymore.

    I have only been able to MAINTAIN when I have eaten back my calories, never LOSE.

    And to the person who says they have never been able to burn off 700 calories in one day... what are your workouts like?? I usually walk for an hour per day in general, either to run errands (I don't have a car) or specifically to get a little extra cardio in, and if I do 33 minutes on the eliptical and half an hour on the bike... that right there is over 700 calories. And that's a day when I don't even go extra hard at the gym! That's a normal day for me. Not sure why 700 calories of burn a day seems strange to you.
  • eso2012
    eso2012 Posts: 337 Member
    Options
    I go with the NET calories. It is simply an equation - your energy consumption vs your energy expenditure. I find that TDEE is more accurate than MFP suggestions, as that takes into account a lot of factors (gender, age, activity levels). Like for me, if I have 1600 +/- calories per day (net), I will maintain my weight. So...

    1. I eat 1600 without exercising, maintain weight
    2. I eat 2000 but burn 400 cals in workout, maintain weight
    3. I eat 1400, I will lose weight (if this continues) etc...

    As you are a waitress, my guess is you actually burn a lot during your normal work hours as well.

    I do not believe in extreme cal deficit because you are setting up your body for starvation or a low metabolic rate.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    I think you know the answer - you're eating way to much for your activity level.

    This response immediately strikes me as completely rude, so I'd appreciate it if you only respond with helpful things.

    There wasn't anything remotely rude about it. The fact that you don't like the actual answer is your issue, not mine.
    I have been guided by MFP to choose a calorie goal. I am a busy waitress five days a week, eight hours a day, and my calorie goal is just fine thank you. I didn't ask you to judge my goals, I asked you to help me with a question I had regarding intake.

    I didn't judge your goals.

    I specifically and explicitly made an observation about your intake - which according to the above is exactly what you claim you want.

    Your intake is too high for your activity level. To achieve your goals, you will have to eat less, or exercise more.

    Good luck!
  • eso2012
    eso2012 Posts: 337 Member
    Options
    Re: 700 cals burn a day. I can never do that unless I am on vacation and walking literally miles a day.

    I track religiously when I work out. At 5'3" and 110-115 pounds, 30 mins of HIIT is about 200 calories. I am talking about super intensive workout. Burn even less if I am doing Pilates (advanced), but I ended up with very toned muscles which help me burn even when I am not moving.

    So 700 cals burn is dreamy for me. Because I can easily eat an extra 700 cals!

    EDITED: When I say I track, I have a very good HRM (Polar) so I know exactly what I am burning. It is not a generic machine calculation, but totally using my heart rate, gender and weight.
  • maxrain
    maxrain Posts: 9
    Options
    To lose weight, you need to have a caloric deficit. But the most important thing is that not all calories are created equal. This is due to glycemic index and how the foods you eat are absorbed. Also our bodies are very smart at adjusting to what you give it. The reason is that the body has the ability to adapt given the availability of food. It can survive on little as it can by storing if it senses that there is not enough food being consumed. So the most important thing is to ensure nutrient fusion, meaning that you switch things up so that your body does not recognize what you are giving it. Second, you can play around with low carb and high carb days. Ie: three days of daily carbs around 40% and then one day around 50%. Depending on your activity level, and your sensitivity to carbs, you may want to adjust the levels to suit you best.

    The most important thing to remember is that you should eat foods after working out to recover. This helps maintain lean body mass if that is your goal, but most importantly you need to keep muscle and cells in the body healthy as the body continually replaces billions of them on a yearly basis. So what you do for the long period of time will dictate whether you can keep them cells healthy and body fat % down. Lots of people think that weight is the important measurement, and this is true to some degree, however weight is the short fix, low body fat % is the key and dictates how successful you are.
  • fast_eddie_72
    fast_eddie_72 Posts: 719 Member
    Options
    I usually don't eat back any of the calories I work off. If I do a really long run I might indulge a little. But I kind of try to stick in my normal calorie goal otherwise. MFP is accounting for some level of activity already.
  • fast_eddie_72
    fast_eddie_72 Posts: 719 Member
    Options
    I think you know the answer - you're eating way to much for your activity level.

    She said she ate 1,600 calories. I really doubt that's "way too much". And, yeah, I know you didn't mean it to, but it did sound kind of ****ish. Just the way you said it with no explanation or anything. Like I say. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    I think you know the answer - you're eating way to much for your activity level.

    She said she ate 1,600 calories. I really doubt that's "way too much".

    People say a lot of things.

    Bottom line: if she is not losing weight over a long period of time - and if her goal is to lose weight - then yes, by definition, she is eating too much for her activity level.
  • fast_eddie_72
    fast_eddie_72 Posts: 719 Member
    Options
    I think you know the answer - you're eating way to much for your activity level.

    She said she ate 1,600 calories. I really doubt that's "way too much".

    People say a lot of things.

    Bottom line: if she is not losing weight over a long period of time - and if her goal is to lose weight - then yes, by definition, she is eating too much for her activity level.

    This is true. Others said the same thing. They just said it nicer. Like that part where you just now pretty much said she's lying? That's the kind of thing that could be phrased a little better. But to the OP, yeah. Everyone who suggested this is right. If you're putting weight back on, you're eating more than you're burning.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    Like that part where you just now pretty much said she's lying?

    I never did any such thing.
  • Ophidion
    Ophidion Posts: 2,065 Member
    Options
    Exercise calories

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

    Logging accuracy

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/872212-you-re-probably-eating-more-than-you-think

    Setting Your Calorie and Macro Targets

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1058378-oh-noes-i-am-eating-below-my-bmr

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1072049-thoughts-on-tdee-calculators-and-switching-from-mfp-

    The Starvation Mode Myth and Reality

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss
  • LC458
    LC458 Posts: 300 Member
    Options
    I think you know the answer - you're eating way to much for your activity level.

    This response immediately strikes me as completely rude, so I'd appreciate it if you only respond with helpful things.

    I have been guided by MFP to choose a calorie goal. I am a busy waitress five days a week, eight hours a day, and my calorie goal is just fine thank you. I didn't ask you to judge my goals, I asked you to help me with a question I had regarding intake.

    This^^
    I eat back the calories primarily when I feel weak, like if I need a banana for a pick me up. I would guess if you burned 700 cals in a workout perhaps only eat half of them back. That was your still under 2000 cals per day. If you dont see the scale moving the way you want it to or your pants not fitting the way you want them to then I would simply adjust this part of your diet. But I would think really if your burning 700 cals and eating around 1600 that is a very low amount and seems like it might set you in "starvation mode". Good luck and hopefully you find what works for you :D
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    But I would think really if your burning 700 cals and eating around 1600 that is a very low amount and seems like it might set you in "starvation mode".

    No, absolutely incorrect.

    If those numbers were accurate, the weight would be melting off the OP at a fast rate.
  • LC458
    LC458 Posts: 300 Member
    Options
    But I would think really if your burning 700 cals and eating around 1600 that is a very low amount and seems like it might set you in "starvation mode".

    No, absolutely incorrect.

    If those numbers were accurate, the weight would be melting off the OP at a fast rate.

    Dude do what works for you and I'll do what works for me. She asked for advice, I gave mine, you gave your little tid bit and now can you please just chill out! Jeezzuuuss
  • Ophidion
    Ophidion Posts: 2,065 Member
    Options
    But I would think really if your burning 700 cals and eating around 1600 that is a very low amount and seems like it might set you in "starvation mode".

    No, absolutely incorrect.

    If those numbers were accurate, the weight would be melting off the OP at a fast rate.
    Using rigorously controlled studies, we’ve found that:

    *1. When people are in a caloric deficit, they always lose weight.

    2. When people are in a caloric surplus, they always gain weight.

    *When People Create a Caloric Deficit — They Always Lose Weight

    Studies using the rigorous standards outlined above have consistently shown that when people eat a calorie restricted diet — they lose weight.3-6

    That is, when researchers measure people’s energy expenditure, weigh all of their food and count their calorie intake, and force them to eat less food than they need to maintain their weight — they lose weight. The amount of weight they lose is also generally proportional to the size of their caloric deficit.

    Whether they eat mostly protein, fat, or carbs makes no significant difference in how much weight they lose.3,5,7-9 Eating more protein does cause you to burn slightly more calories, around 70-100 per day, but it’s usually not enough to make a significant difference in weight loss.10-13

    At this point, eating a calorie restricted diet and exercising (largely to burn more calories) are also considered the two most scientifically supported ways to lose weight.14-17 It works.

    When you restrict your calorie intake enough to create a deficit, you lose weight. It turns out the reverse is also true.

    *http://evidencemag.com/why-calories-count/
  • LC458
    LC458 Posts: 300 Member
    Options
    But I would think really if your burning 700 cals and eating around 1600 that is a very low amount and seems like it might set you in "starvation mode".

    No, absolutely incorrect.

    If those numbers were accurate, the weight would be melting off the OP at a fast rate.
    Using rigorously controlled studies, we’ve found that:

    *1. When people are in a caloric deficit, they always lose weight.

    2. When people are in a caloric surplus, they always gain weight.

    *When People Create a Caloric Deficit — They Always Lose Weight

    Studies using the rigorous standards outlined above have consistently shown that when people eat a calorie restricted diet — they lose weight.3-6

    That is, when researchers measure people’s energy expenditure, weigh all of their food and count their calorie intake, and force them to eat less food than they need to maintain their weight — they lose weight. The amount of weight they lose is also generally proportional to the size of their caloric deficit.

    Whether they eat mostly protein, fat, or carbs makes no significant difference in how much weight they lose.3,5,7-9 Eating more protein does cause you to burn slightly more calories, around 70-100 per day, but it’s usually not enough to make a significant difference in weight loss.10-13

    At this point, eating a calorie restricted diet and exercising (largely to burn more calories) are also considered the two most scientifically supported ways to lose weight.14-17 It works.

    When you restrict your calorie intake enough to create a deficit, you lose weight. It turns out the reverse is also true.

    *http://evidencemag.com/why-calories-count/

    And I can totally agree to this however the girl is eating 1600 cals a day and working off 700 cals. To me I would need to eat more and so yes I understand losing the weight is the goal here but not in such a way you cannot function. That's my two cents but yes,
    less in = more off. I just dont want to faint in the process
  • fast_eddie_72
    fast_eddie_72 Posts: 719 Member
    Options
    Like that part where you just now pretty much said she's lying?

    I never did any such thing.

    Yeah. You did. Not married, are you? lol

    I said that she said she ate 1,600 calories. You said "people say a lot of things". That's kinda saying she's lying. It just is. Sorry. Thanks for playing. As a parting contestant you'll enjoy a home version of our game.
  • determinedbutlazy
    determinedbutlazy Posts: 1,941 Member
    Options
    How are you estimating your calorie burns? Are you using a HRM? If you're not losing weight, you're eating too much for your activity level. Cut down what percentage of your cals you eat back until you start losing again.

Categories