Calories in Calories out Question

A lot of people on here have come to the consensus of eating back about half of the calories you burn. I'd say it's a good amount, accounting for over-estimated burns and underestimated calorie numbers in foods.

half for me

I only eat a portion back. I like leave some to account for miscalculations in calorie burns and calorie intake.

On days when I exercise I eat back(or ahead) about half of the calories MFP says I burn. It probably isn't that high anyway and I want to maintain about a 800 cal deficit each day so this seems to work. MFP seems to overestimate the number of cals burned during any workout. If you are following the
MFP numbers i would suggest eating back no more than 60% of your workout cals to maintain your deficit.

I always ate my exercise calories back. My goal was to end each day in a 300-500 calorie deficit and fuel my body adequately to preserve as much muscle mass as possible while dieting. If I burned a 1000 calories on a long run, I ate those 1000 calories back. Faster isn't better when it comes to weight loss. Stick with it and the pounds will add up, just look at my ticker.

Assuming your trainer is well-educated in nutrition, she should know the correct number of calories the workout is burning; most recommendations to 'only eat back half' stem from concern that the calories burned in the database used are optimistically high.

My trainer threatened my life if I did not eat all mine back lol. does eating all the calories back make the progress slower?

Sure it would slow your weight loss. If you're eating back all that you're burning, what's the point? We don't have the information your personal trainer has? Are you already on a severe calorie deficit diet? Do you need to lose weight? If you don't need to lose weight and you're just trying to get in shape, that would be one reason why you would eat calories back.

Ummm...huh?

By that theory, if she ate 1600 cals, and then worked out and burned 1600 cals, netting ZERO CALS FOR THE DAY, then you don't think the poor girl should eat something? Really?

Her calorie goal already includes a deficit. If she works out, she is creating an even larger deficit, potentially to the point of being unhealthy since her net calories would dip well below 1200. Eating back exercise calories allows you to maintain a healthy deficit, not an insane one which could damage your health.

Not to argue but I'm curious if there really is any actual "science" behind the idea that eating 0 net calories is the same as eating nothing at all?

Most days I end up at a negative number for my caloric intake but I eat between 1700-1900 calories and I feel like I am far from starving, I just spend a few hours a day on my bike and feel great.

I've always suspected that someone here just equated net calories with actual calories despite the fact that there really isn't much science to say eating well and exercising a lot is bad for you if you burn more calories than you eat. Seems like as long as I am physically active and feel great there really isn't much of a reason to shove an extra pound or two of bacon inside of me to help me lose weight.

I only eat a portion back. I like leave some to account for miscalculations in calorie burns and calorie intake.

Yup - even with a heart rate monitor, it seems hard to pin down what the real burn is.

Not to argue but I'm curious if there really is any actual "science" behind the idea that eating 0 net calories is the same as eating nothing at all?

Most days I end up at a negative number for my caloric intake but I eat between 1700-1900 calories and I feel like I am far from starving, I just spend a few hours a day on my bike and feel great.

I've always suspected that someone here just equated net calories with actual calories despite the fact that there really isn't much science to say eating well and exercising a lot is bad for you if you burn more calories than you eat. Seems like as long as I am physically active and feel great there really isn't much of a reason to shove an extra pound or two of bacon inside of me to help me lose weight.

I agree. I read most of the diet books that come down the pike (and they're not 'fads', they have more authority and recognition than MFP, by and large) and have never run across the term 'net calories' or the need to 'eat back' in any of them.

I guess WW is the closest I've seen, with its Activity Points concept which (1) maxes at half your exercise burn and (2) is entirely optional to eat or not. So not really the same at all.