Should I Eat Back The Calories?
Replies
-
I don't. When I actually logged my exercise I didn't like the amount of calories MFP said I burnt. I'm even skeptical of my HRM. If you are hungry over your cals (when set at sedentary) and have worked out just know you can eat more and still be fine!
Personally, I am a big believer in listening to your body. If your tummy's growling you need to feed it
You'll find what works for you soon enough!! Best of luck
Don't do this.
The membership of this site is filled with people that "listened to their bodies", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. Your body lies to you. Listen to your brain, and follow the plan.
This guy knows everything, listen to him.0 -
a person i know (who has used this for 2 years and lost 41 lbs) says never eat back more than 25%.
Good for him, but a person (actually people) I know have lost over 100lb each in the past 3 years and they eat back 75-100%.
Everyone is different!0 -
I think this all depends on what stage you're at. Someone just starting a fitness routine and wanting rapid weight loss will be OK in working out and NOT eating back the calories. However, you'll plateau eventually. When that happens you'll need to eat more.
There is no such thing as a one size fits all rule. As our bodies change we need to change what we put into them.
Different goals, different methods. Body builders that want to grow muscle and flex a lot have very different needs than someone that simply wants to drop 25 pounds and doesn't care to be ripped.
That's my opinion, for what it's worth.
Interesting debate, and I'd love to hear arguments to the above. This is a learning process for me....0 -
I think this all depends on what stage you're at. Someone just starting a fitness routine and wanting rapid weight loss will be OK in working out and NOT eating back the calories. However, you'll plateau eventually. When that happens you'll need to eat more.
There is no such thing as a one size fits all rule. As our bodies change we need to change what we put into them.
Different goals, different methods. Body builders that want to grow muscle and flex a lot have very different needs than someone that simply wants to drop 25 pounds and doesn't care to be ripped.
That's my opinion, for what it's worth.
Interesting debate, and I'd love to hear arguments to the above. This is a learning process for me....
You're right, someone with a lot of weight to lose may not need to eat them all back, but not at the sake for "rapid weight loss". Rapid weight loss usually comes with the sacrifice of LBM because the individuals deficit is too big.
I don't even understand bringing up bodybuilders in this conversation.0 -
I have left about 2k calories on the table over the last 2 days. I simply don't have the hunger to eat back what I am in deficit for. Scales seem to think I am doing OK but I don't see it being sustainable.0
-
I agree with you. I tried eating back my calories that I burned from working out, and I did not lose any weight. Now when I workout I do not eat back my calories unless I burned so many calories that I am hungry. For example 1500 calories burning 1300 calories, I will eat more than my daily calorie budget. Each person is different and the way they lose is different.0
-
I don't even understand bringing up bodybuilders in this conversation.
I think I mean that people that are primarily concerned with bulking up and getting huge muscles have very different nutritional goals that people that just want to lose fat.
It seems that the more people get wrapped up in this kind of stuff the more that they believe that their specific nutritional goals are right for everyone. You can see that in these forums and all over the place. It doesn't mean that they're wrong, but their "right" is not right for everyone.
I didn't mean to knock body builders, so sorry to anyone if it came off that way.
I think that you'd plateau in your weight loss before losing any significant lean body mass. That is, provided you get more than 1200 calories minimum after all exercise is taken into account. I think 1200 is the minimum for most people, but only for a short time. Maybe 4 weeks or so. I think I got a "C" in high school science, so my logic here must be sound.
But yeah, everybody is different.0 -
I think this all depends on what stage you're at. Someone just starting a fitness routine and wanting rapid weight loss will be OK in working out and NOT eating back the calories. However, you'll plateau eventually. When that happens you'll need to eat more.
There is no such thing as a one size fits all rule. As our bodies change we need to change what we put into them.
Different goals, different methods. Body builders that want to grow muscle and flex a lot have very different needs than someone that simply wants to drop 25 pounds and doesn't care to be ripped.
That's my opinion, for what it's worth.
Interesting debate, and I'd love to hear arguments to the above. This is a learning process for me....
I don't understand bringing up bodybuilders in this discussion either.
The reason you give for people plateauing is not accurate. If a person is truly in a caloric deficit, a short stall may happen, but not an extended long-term plateau.
The most often cause for plateauing is inaccurate logging, whether it is intentional or not.
For example, an obese person that maintains weight eating 3000 calories a day has a calorie goal of 1200. This person doesn't weigh or measure food and does a lot of quick add calories. Besides that, they are overestimating their calorie burns and eating all of them back. They are ACTUALLY eating around 2200 calories a day. This person is not eating their calorie goal, but they are still losing weight because it's less than their maintenance calories.
Fast forward and this person has lost a significant amount of weight but hasn't lost in a couple of months. They are still not weighing their food, still quick adding calories, and overestimating burns, all under the assumption that they are still eating 1200 calories a day. It's not starvation mode. It's not being accurate.
What happens is at a lower weight, there is less margin for error. A person only needing to lose 5 pounds can completely blow their calorie deficit if they go over their goal by 300 calories.0 -
I don't even understand bringing up bodybuilders in this conversation.
I think I mean that people that are primarily concerned with bulking up and getting huge muscles have very different nutritional goals that people that just want to lose fat.
It seems that the more people get wrapped up in this kind of stuff the more that they believe that their specific nutritional goals are right for everyone. You can see that in these forums and all over the place. It doesn't mean that they're wrong, but their "right" is not right for everyone.
I didn't mean to knock body builders, so sorry to anyone if it came off that way.
I think that you'd plateau in your weight loss before losing any significant lean body mass. That is, provided you get more than 1200 calories minimum after all exercise is taken into account. I think 1200 is the minimum for most people, but only for a short time. Maybe 4 weeks or so. I think I got a "C" in high school science, so my logic here must be sound.
But yeah, everybody is different.
Thinking you'd plateau before losing LBM would be incorrect. When the deficit is large LBM is can and will burned for fuel more than fat as it is easier to process. That's is how a person can lose large amounts of weight, but have very little change in BF%.
An of course a someone who is bulking has different nutritional goals....they're eating in a surplus.0 -
I eat back just about all of my exercise calories. I run as my cardio 6x a week. I would be starving to death if i didn't eat more and wouldn't be able to run that much and honestly i can't function with no running. I did however do some research on running and net calories burned. I use the calculation of .63x my weight then x that by the number of miles i run. That ='s my calories burned per run. It only differs from what mfp calculates my calorie burn is by about 100 calories. So i honestly think you could eat back every calorie mfp says you burn and still be ok
0 -
MFP gives you a calorie deficit before exercise, just following this as long as you are honest and log EVERYTHING including drinks will result in a weight loss.
If you then add exercise to it, you can eat those calories back, but if you cant get all those calories in, dont panic about it unless its regular.
If you dont eat & drink at least the original number of calories you will starve your body, if you eat your original allowance then work out and dont eat any of those back, you will starve your body.
The most impoprtant thing is to do whats right for you, which is why you will get so many diffrent responses to this question. We are all different and our bodies react in different ways. If you eat them all back all the time and its not working, try only taking 75% back, if its still not working try 50% and so on.
Just make sure you log everything that passes your lips oh, and consiger the nutritional value of what is passing your lips.
Good luck with it, happy if you want to add as a friend for support.0 -
I might be wrong, but I thought that when you use a HRM, it is calculating both the calories from doing exercise PLUS the calories from just being alive (resting metabolism calories). Since MFP already takes into account your RM calories, then the HRM calories might be double-counting those.
Again, I'm not 100% sure, so maybe someone with more expertise can confirm or correct this.0 -
The most impoprtant thing is to do whats right for you, which is why you will get so many diffrent responses to this question. We are all different and our bodies react in different ways.
I was with you until I got here. With a few exceptions for medical conditions, all human beings who take in fewer calories than they burn off lose weight over the medium- and long-term. Our bodies don't react in different ways. It's all about accuracy. Hollydubs gives a perfect example above.0 -
I don't. When I actually logged my exercise I didn't like the amount of calories MFP said I burnt. I'm even skeptical of my HRM. If you are hungry over your cals (when set at sedentary) and have worked out just know you can eat more and still be fine!
Personally, I am a big believer in listening to your body. If your tummy's growling you need to feed it
You'll find what works for you soon enough!! Best of luck
By all means, we should be learning to listen to our bodies. But we also have to accept that hunger isn't the only indicator of whether or not we're getting enough to eat. The hormones that control hunger cues can be suppressed by too many things, including stress, long periods of underfeeding, or even exercise. Mood, energy levels, performance, and physical cues like healthy skin and nails also need to be taken into account.0 -
I never eat mine back..whats the point in burning them off and then eating them back. Stay within ur daily calories and exercise.0
-
I never eat mine back..whats the point in burning them off and then eating them back. Stay within ur daily calories and exercise.
So a large % of your loss doesn't come from lean muscle. Exercise is for better health and it allows you to eat more.0 -
I never eat mine back..whats the point in burning them off and then eating them back. Stay within ur daily calories and exercise.
So you can eat more, duh. 0 -
I never eat mine back..whats the point in burning them off and then eating them back. Stay within ur daily calories and exercise.
Why do you think MFP adds them back?0 -
OP, if you're still here, I recommend the links that Tryclyn posted, especially this one:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/818082-exercise-calories-again-wtf
And then the eat, train, progress group that s/he mentioned.0 -
Do what your body tells you to do.
If I gain an extra 200 calories to eat by walking, but eat only 1200 calories that day (instead of the 1800+200) I don't fret - as long as my body isn't hungry for anything. Same extra 200 calories on a different day and I eat the 2000 calories now allotted to me *because my body is hungry*.
TL;DR
Hungry? Eat. Not hungry? Don't eat.0 -
Do what your body tells you to do.
If I gain an extra 200 calories to eat by walking, but eat only 1200 calories that day (instead of the 1800+200) I don't fret - as long as my body isn't hungry for anything. Same extra 200 calories on a different day and I eat the 2000 calories now allotted to me *because my body is hungry*.
TL;DR
Hungry? Eat. Not hungry? Don't eat.
No, because if you restrict your calories, appetite often disappears. It's not a reliable indicator of the nutrition you need. For example, many anorexics can go for a long time without being hungry despite the damage they are doing to their bodies.0 -
I have lost only 20 pounds in almost a year of exercising hard and eating back my calories. So I am trying to not do so, to have a deficit. I think our bodies are different so u have to consistently try it one way, and then if it doesn't work, do things differently.0
-
Do what your body tells you to do.
If I gain an extra 200 calories to eat by walking, but eat only 1200 calories that day (instead of the 1800+200) I don't fret - as long as my body isn't hungry for anything. Same extra 200 calories on a different day and I eat the 2000 calories now allotted to me *because my body is hungry*.
TL;DR
Hungry? Eat. Not hungry? Don't eat.
While I agree that a day or two under your calorie goal isn't a big deal, I'm not a fan of the advice to not eat the extra calories unless you're hungry. Far too many people, both on these boards and lurking, use this advice to justify eating at unsafe levels because their hunger cues are out of whack. Hunger cannot be the only thing you listen to. Energy levels, mood, performance, healthy skin and nails, muscle retention, bone density, there are just too many things affected by undereating that aren't signaled by hunger alone.0 -
Do what your body tells you to do.
If I gain an extra 200 calories to eat by walking, but eat only 1200 calories that day (instead of the 1800+200) I don't fret - as long as my body isn't hungry for anything. Same extra 200 calories on a different day and I eat the 2000 calories now allotted to me *because my body is hungry*.
TL;DR
Hungry? Eat. Not hungry? Don't eat.
Because overweight people are so great at knowing when they're hungry or not hungry. :huh:
Advice like this often goes two ways.
1) A person restricts their eating to the point where their so hungry they eat everything in sight. Or,
2) Confusing hunger for cravings and still eats everything in sight.
Edited to omit generalization.
Edited again to add this: What you described in your personal example is called zigzagging and is fine. Plenty of people do this, but they do it consciously, not because one day they're hungry or not hungry on a certain day.0 -
I went through the same thing that the OP is trying to figure out when I first came here...trying to figure out if I should eat them or not...how much do I eat back...are my burn calories correct. I went through this until I found the formula for figuring out my TDEE.
I took my tracking for a two month time period and figured out what I should be eating to obtain my desired loss. It took all the guess work out of it. So far it is working for me. I eat close to my limit and then I don't have to worry about eating back those calories. I compared my figures to what IIFYM TDEE Calculator and I was withing 10 calories of what they gave me.
Every month I will just recalculate it and adjust if necessary.
It was on the Eat, Train and Progress Forum. Sara posted it and explained it very simply.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets
For it to work you must have at least a couple of months accurate tracking.0 -
Do what your body tells you to do.
If I gain an extra 200 calories to eat by walking, but eat only 1200 calories that day (instead of the 1800+200) I don't fret - as long as my body isn't hungry for anything. Same extra 200 calories on a different day and I eat the 2000 calories now allotted to me *because my body is hungry*.
TL;DR
Hungry? Eat. Not hungry? Don't eat.
No, because if you restrict your calories, appetite often disappears. It's not a reliable indicator of the nutrition you need. For example, many anorexics can go for a long time without being hungry despite the damage they are doing to their bodies.
My apologies, I didn't realize the OP was anorexic :huh: Besides which, anorexics use all sorts of tricks to refrain from being hungry; fizzy drinks, gum, chew and spit method... so many more I can't recall. Anorexics do get hungry as the body will do what it has to do in order to survive, and that includes forcing you to be hungry. As for your appetite disappearing when you restrict calories, I didn't find any scientific articles supporting this idea. But I did find one that seems to support the idea that calorie restriction/fasting increases appetite.
http://web.b.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=03070565&AN=9012689&h=PGOyhQr1ju3m6+EzT2wyjFvDxNI5LxlygKqSAYc3Xu6dFq4agWHQUdh72d9drj+PHAcdEOnQXtB3vZFoEM+oWQ==&crl=c
I'll keep looking though, unless you have links to real science.0 -
Because overweight people are so great at knowing when they're hungry or not hungry. :huh:
I could have sworn that MFP gives you goals to stay within. Isn't using this goals system all about learning a different way to feel about and look at food? These goals are also suppose to help us eat when we're hungry but eat the right things and not a lot of it. So, if you have eaten only 1200 calories, and you still have another 800 calories to go, and you're hungry, why the *kitten* can't you rely on your hunger signals and eat? That's not rhetorical either. Please explain to me why an overweight person with calories left on their goal can not eat because they're hungry.0 -
I don't ever eat mine back and I lose about 2lbs a week. I also don't burn anywhere close to 1000 calories during a workout. I usually burn about 520 for cardio and I have no clue what I burn for strength training so I don't ever count that. I'm sure this wouldn't work for everyone though so just try doing it both ways (eating them back and not eating them back) and see what works best for you. Good luck!0
-
10
-
Ok, so someone let me know if I've got this straight, please:
When we signed up on MFP, we entered our weight, age, etc. and how active we are, then entered how much weight we wanted to lose.
MFP came up with a calorie number that, WITHOUT EXERCISE, would achieve the desired weight loss through diet change alone.
ADDING exercise, we need to eat back the calories burned to remain at the initial number to maintain healthy weight loss. Correct? Not eating those calories back could result in unhealthy, unsustainable weight loss, or potentially put the body into emergency conservation mode, right?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions