Why should you eat back exercise calories?

Options
lauriebeakley1
lauriebeakley1 Posts: 91
in Health and Weight Loss
I thought you lost weight by burning more calories than you eat. How is it possible to lose weight if you eat back the calories you burn? I keep reading posts that are telling people to be sure to eat back their exercise calories. That seems so counterproductive to me! Can someone please explain this to me? I really thought you were supposed to create a deficit but this just seems to keep everything level. I'm confused.

Replies

  • nomeejerome
    nomeejerome Posts: 2,616 Member
    Options
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/818082-exercise-calories-again-wtf
  • ChrisM8971
    ChrisM8971 Posts: 1,067 Member
    Options
    MFP already created the deficit for you when you entered your stats and weight loss goals. The site is designed for you to eat back the calories and still have that deficit

    Its why the calorie goals it assigns you are generally a fair amount less than using the TDEE -% method
  • kaylagaston13
    kaylagaston13 Posts: 14
    Options
    I was confused, but I'm assuming because MFP already calculates the deficit in before it gives you your daily goal. That daily calorie goal is then what you should be aiming for in terms of calories. Burning calories is useful in being able to make up for over indulgence and also required for getting into shape via exercise. But eating back the calories for the goal is good because since there is already a calculated deficit, going under that too much will actually hinder weight loss of fat in the long run.
  • StaceyJ2008
    StaceyJ2008 Posts: 411 Member
    Options
    I don't eat back my calories but that is personal preference. I am also on a high protein diet though so I am different than some. As long as you aren't eating really low calories you should be fine either way.
  • Frank_Just_Frank
    Frank_Just_Frank Posts: 454 Member
    Options
    Be careful though, I find the exercise calories assigned by the site are very generous. That's why I prefer the tdee method, I don't have an hrm to get an accurate answer.
  • littleburgy
    littleburgy Posts: 570 Member
    Options
    Because MFP is pretty generous with calories burned and I don't have a HRM (yet) -- I don't eat back all of my calories, just a portion of them, unless I'm really hungry or the day warrants it (someone's birthday, drinks, going to dinner, etc).
  • lauriebeakley1
    lauriebeakley1 Posts: 91
    Options
    MFP has me at 1210 a day & I do use a HRM so I get a super accurate calorie count when I exercise. I didn't pay any attention the fact that they created the deficit for me & it's right there in red! I just looked! I have it set for me to lose 2 pounds a week so it has a deficit of 990.
  • JaneanAnnin
    JaneanAnnin Posts: 15 Member
    Options
    What is you protein %? 40?
  • ChrisM8971
    ChrisM8971 Posts: 1,067 Member
    Options
    MFP has me at 1210 a day & I do use a HRM so I get a super accurate calorie count when I exercise. I didn't pay any attention the fact that they created the deficit for me & it's right there in red! I just looked! I have it set for me to lose 2 pounds a week so it has a deficit of 990.

    HRM's aren't always as accurate as many believe them to be so you can still over/under estimate calorie burns with them, but as long as you are tracking your weekly weight loss and it falls fairly close to what you are expecting then you know things are in the right ball park.

    A weight loss goal of 2 lbs per week may even be a little high considering you only have about 40 lbs left to lose.
  • lauriebeakley1
    lauriebeakley1 Posts: 91
    Options
    They have my daily goal of protein at 72g & today I hit 52g. I'm a pescatarian so most of my protein comes from fish.
  • lauriebeakley1
    lauriebeakley1 Posts: 91
    Options
    That 40 pounds is my short term goal. After I reach that, I'll have another 50 or so to go.
  • ChrisM8971
    ChrisM8971 Posts: 1,067 Member
    Options
    That 40 pounds is my short term goal. After I reach that, I'll have another 50 or so to go.

    In that case 2 lbs per week sounds reasonable :smile:
  • mzhokie
    mzhokie Posts: 349 Member
    Options
    I find if I eat below a NET of 1200 calories a day for more than one day, my weight loss slows down. I do better if I make sure I get at least 1200 net for the day. That doesn't mean I have to eat them all back but I do eat some of them back.
  • BonecrusherBrews
    BonecrusherBrews Posts: 131 Member
    Options
    Thanks for asking this OP. I've been wondering the same thing!

    Thanks everyone for the good information.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    MFP has me at 1210 a day & I do use a HRM so I get a super accurate calorie count when I exercise.

    No, you don't, HRMs do not measure calorie burns.

    Use the numbers as they are reported at your peril.
  • AmyRhubarb
    AmyRhubarb Posts: 6,890 Member
    Options
    MFP has me at 1210 a day & I do use a HRM so I get a super accurate calorie count when I exercise.

    No, you don't, HRMs do not measure calorie burns.

    Use the numbers as they are reported at your peril.
    I've used my HRMs calorie burns "at my peril" for around three years now - very successful in losing the fat and inches.

    A good HRM is a great tool and has been very useful to me - the numbers must be close enough because it's been working for me just fine. :smile:
  • UpEarly
    UpEarly Posts: 2,555 Member
    Options
    I used MFP's numbers. I set my calories to lose a half pound a week. I ate my exercise calories. I ended up losing 1.5-2 pounds per week. Not sure why I lost so much faster than MFP predicted (I guess I'm more active than I thought)... but the deficit is definitely built in to accommodate eating your exercise calories.

    I lost 66 pounds really easily just doing what MFP said. (and I've kept it off for about two years now)
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    A good HRM is a great tool and has been very useful to me - the numbers must be close enough because it's been working for me just fine.

    That's just plain bad logic.

    Each to their own - there is a wealth of information on this topic in already existent threads, not going to rehash it here.
  • bwogilvie
    bwogilvie Posts: 2,130 Member
    Options
    That's just plain bad logic.

    Each to their own - there is a wealth of information on this topic in already existent threads, not going to rehash it here.

    It's not logic at all. It's experience. If someone is using their HRM to estimate calories burned, and their weight loss results match the estimates, then the HRM appears to be accurate.

    HRMs are not always reliable (especially for women, and for lower-intensity exercise), but that does not mean that they are always unreliable. It would be a real logical error to conclude the latter.
  • lauriebeakley1
    lauriebeakley1 Posts: 91
    Options
    MFP has me at 1210 a day & I do use a HRM so I get a super accurate calorie count when I exercise.

    No, you don't, HRMs do not measure calorie burns.

    Use the numbers as they are reported at your peril.

    Yes, I do. It came with my Polar watch & they work together to monitor everything.

Categories