Here's why I don't eat back my exercise calories.

I really have not paid that close attention to all the math of calories in and calories out lately. I am more concerned with doing something to keep active daily that I enjoy and making healthy choices when it comes to what I eat. I'll call it the kiss method for being happy and healthy. I do log most of the time because it keeps me accountable and in the past has helped me to take a closer look where the numbers were way off. It's all estimates anyhow.

Hello zombie thread.

Amused to see that the OP has disappeared since, I guess it worked fantastic for her.

Yes. I eat back my calories, but I'm trying to get away from doing that because I want the extra weight loss from those exercise calories. It's been hard implementing this change, though. If I absolutely want something, then I will give myself half of my calories at the most.

If I exercise late at night say midnight, then I'm sleepy right after and never eat back my exercise calories.

If I exercise early in the morning, I don't really believe there's a reason to eat back my exercise calories because I usually have 1400 calories left for the rest of the day.

My problem hasn't been eating back my calories, though. It's been eating beyond my calorie budget [bingeing] and then purging myself of all or most of that surplus on the treadmill. I'm working on that, too. This is why I'm now moving my workouts to the morning. I feel like I'm more successful if I do it this way. And, if I want something else, then I may give myself up to half of my exercise calories.

Agree with you...eat when hungry and will worry about it when I'm sub-20% body fat.

waiting to eat when you get hungry slows your metabolism down. the key is to keep your metabolism up and never become hungry so it trains your body to not go into starvation mode.

I eat mine back, but use a heart rate monitor so it is accurate. Working out lets me have that desert or beer I want at the end of the day.

eating back your calories is a new idea. there is no reason to exercise then, is there.. of course there is if you are looking for cardio health or to build muscle, thats fine. you eat them back once you are maintaining. only since we've become obese as a nation to we think we should eat back exercise calories. and let me tell you all these bands, gym tools, etc, they all LIE by about 30%. So if you think you burned 600, its closer to 400. As long as your got adequate nutrition from your 12-1600 calories per day, you can burn THEM ALL off and you will be fine. When I was in college, after every meal, I worked them off. I didn't drop of exhaustion, I was just fine.

1.) I don't think you understand how MFP's deficit works. There's already a deficit whether you exercise or not. Eating the calories back is to keep the deficit from being unhealthy. Which leads me to:
2.) Are you saying that it's safe and healthy to eat 1200 calories worth of food for the day and burn off 1200 calories with exercise? If so your post violates the community guidelines.
3.) People are often advised to eat back half to three quarters of the calories burned to compensate for inaccuracies. Personally I've always eaten back every calorie.

This.

People who say it's defeating the purpose of exercise to eat back the calories don't understand how MFP's deficit works.

The idea is to build the desired weight loss (or maintenance or gain) based on the deficit selected. You can build that deficit just by cutting calories or, as many will recommend, by cutting calories plus exercise. For example, if you want to lose 2 lbs per week it makes sense (if you are able to be sufficiently active) to focus on cutting 500 calories per day and exercising for an average of 500 calories per day. That's a less extreme deficit and also serves other fitness goals through exercise.

The way MFP works, though, there's no way to do that except by starting with a budgeted deficit based on 1000 calories cut per day and then when you exercise earning the calories back.

It's bizarre to me that people seem to think that just because MFP is set up that way this somehow means that not having a generally-considered too extreme deficit of 1500 calories (if you don't eat back the exercise) is somehow defeating the point or weak or some such. It's the same healthy way to lose weight based on a combination of calorie counting and exercise that was originally planned. It's just that MFP recognizes that some people won't exercise and will have to cut calories more to achieve the same weight loss.

Personally, I've typically eaten most of my exercise calories and lost precisely what MFP predicted.

Now I don't eat exercise calories because I'm doing the TDEE method, but under that method my exercise is included when I figure out my calories, just as with MFP when used as intended.

Also, it's enough for me to measure and weigh everything I eat in order to get accurate calorie counts. I don't want to have to be fanatical about measuring caloriesed burn too. Maybe if I was an accountant type, that would be more appealing.

I get this, and obviously it injects additional error, which is one reason I am now enjoying having switched over to the TDEE method. I also personally prefer having a similar amount of calories per day, whether it's my off-day or I run 2 hours. It just works better for me. If I really felt like I needed more calories on a heavy exercise day I'd eat more, though.

But it works for me because I've considered how much exercise I do when setting up my goal, and have a goal that MFP tells me will lead to little weight loss (because the majority of my deficit currently is built from exercise), even though seeing that at first (and the far less impressive "in 5 weeks" messages without my exercise totals included) freaked me out a bit. What worries me are people--like the person who resurrected this thread--who seem to want to eat 1200 or at a level that MFP says will lead to 2 lbs/week lost and then add lots of exercise on top of that, without compensating. Unless you are really obese, I think that's not a good idea.

And unfortunately threads like this and posts like the person who resurrected this also seem to have this implicit (or sometimes explicit) message that it's better, tougher, less pig-like, whatever, to not eat back those calories, that it means you are really doing it right by eating less. I think that's a bad message, contrary to what MFP's method is really, and not the best approach to weight loss.

(I am not saying you are giving that message, but your post just led to my reply and then those related thoughts.)

I bet you don't eat 1200 calories and actually eat heaps of calories. Hence you don't need to, but a lot of people especially someone like me who is on 1200 MUST. Otherwise it would be starving.

This thread is pretty old and hasn't been posted on in over two weeks now, but I wanted to give my two cents because my experience seems pretty rare compared to others on MFP. I'm 4' 11" and have followed MFP's calculator for a few years now, lost around 30 pounds back in 2010/2011, put a few back on and settled at around 130. Still VERY heavy for my height.

This year I decided to really buckle down. In May, I lost a few pounds eating back calories, but decided to experiment with alternate restriction and IF -- I lost over twenty pounds this year going under MFP's suggested amount.

I felt fine and lost fine until the last few months. The change? I decided to go back MFP's suggested amount. I listened to the people suggesting that if you eat more when you exercise more, you'll lose more. I've gained about five pounds in the last three months trying to follow the advice tendered out on every "eat back your calories" thread. And this is with exercising 500-700 calories off five to six days a week. I am militant about calories most days and weigh everything that goes into my body, so before it's suggested, I don't have an "extra bite" here and there.

I think the problem lies in the fact that I am 4'11". A person who is under the average height and body structure shouldn't be eating the way a person who is 5' 5" eats. It shouldn't even be recommended that I eat that much, when according to other calculators I burn 1000-1200 on a good exercise-free day. MFP thinks I burn upwards of 1500. Seriously not happening.

I get why MFP'S calculator says no one should eat under 1200 calories. They're trying to ward against people developing eating disorders. Unfortunately, every thread I read likes to push the idea of "starvation mode". Here's the kicker: Starvation mode will not set in until you are UNDER a healthy BMI, and certainly below a healthy BF percentage. Your metabolism will not be damaged through under-eating until you are under a healthy BF percentage, and even then, it's only about an 11% reduction MAX.

Even anorexic patients recover metabolic levels after around two weeks of refeeding. I can cite studies on both starvation mode as a myth and metabolism recovery, if anyone needs 'em.

TL;DR for the lazy - Starvation mode does not exist in the way people on MFP think it does. If you burn 500 calories and don't eat them back you'll be fine. If you go to bed hungry, you'll be fine. Just make sure you're getting your vitamins, maybe even watch your macros, and be careful not to pass out from a lack of electrolytes.

It's so unlikely anyone on this site, especially proponents of "eat back everything!", is eating little enough to pass out from it. Even less likely that they're not losing because they're under-eating. What is likely, is that they are weighing on off days; days where they retain water weight because of exercise or sodium or period bloat. Another factor is food weight. If you start eating more, you're going to weigh more. If you eat more, you'll likely have the drive to exercise more and therefore will burn more, and in turn will weight less, etc. Plateaus happen for a number of reasons and I personally think rather than going calorie crazy and eating hundreds over what you'd normally eat, which can encourage unhealthy binge habits, just change up your workout routine.

Lorleee wrote: »

I don't eat ever them back because (a) a Registered Dietician (not a nutritionist) looked at me like I had two heads when I mentioned that eating them back is a "thing" and (b) because I don't operate on 1200 calories a day but rather 1400 if I'm trying to lose a few, so I don't think I am wasting away, and (C) because the amount of calories burned during exercise tends to be grossly overestimated and quite honestly, I work out to maintain cardio health, improve balance and strength, not to lose weight, so I don't even put the exercise into my weight loss equation. Same as water. I drink because I'm thirsty, not because I think it's going to flush away fat.

What works for me may not for others, so to each their own.

It's just important to understand the methods and how they are different. It sounds like you are doing something like what's called the TDEE method around here -- starting with an understanding of your overall physical activity and then deciding what a good cut would be (which leaves you with more than 1200, generally). I'm doing the same, and that's why I also don't eat back exercise calories currently.

But when someone uses MFP to figure a calorie goal to lose, say, 2 lbs/week and gets 1200, that assumes that the person is sedentary. If you aren't, cutting 1000 calories/week off your sedentary maintenance level is generally too aggressive and doesn't set you up for meeting fitness goals typically if you have them. That's why under those circumstances eating back exercise is a thing. It's the less common approach, but it is the approach MFP uses (and it's why people not familiar with the MFP approach--like me at first--might be surprised at how low a goal they are given).

Serah87 wrote: »

Usually the "mean" people are the ones who lost the most weight or have kept it off. I think I will go with what they say!!! I eat back my exercise calories and sometimes plus more and I have lost 121 pounds. I think I am doing it right!!

I wouldn't place a hierarchy on who is more right just based on how much they've lost, I think that's a little more than just "mean". Nobody earns the right to be rude just because they had more weight to lose. I've lost fifty pounds doing various different things and while I gained a little back because I stalled and decided to go try MFP's way again, it doesn't negate the fact that not eating calories back works just as well as eating them back.

Some people say not eating them back or eating too little "leads" to anorexic behavior. I think that eating them back is enabling for people with binge eating disorder and binge-like behavior.

There are plenty of ways to lose weight and none of them is "right" for everyone except the basic "calories in < calories out".

FredDoyle wrote: »

merrycam wrote: »

Serah87 wrote: »

Usually the "mean" people are the ones who lost the most weight or have kept it off. I think I will go with what they say!!! I eat back my exercise calories and sometimes plus more and I have lost 121 pounds. I think I am doing it right!!

I wouldn't place a hierarchy on who is more right just based on how much they've lost, I think that's a little more than just "mean". Nobody earns the right to be rude just because they had more weight to lose. I've lost fifty pounds doing various different things and while I gained a little back because I stalled and decided to go try MFP's way again, it doesn't negate the fact that not eating calories back works just as well as eating them back.

Some people say not eating them back or eating too little "leads" to anorexic behavior. I think that eating them back is enabling for people with binge eating disorder and binge-like behavior.

There are plenty of ways to lose weight and none of them is "right" for everyone except the basic "calories in < calories out".

Or you know, the way in which the site you're on is supposed to work.

Sure. That doesn't mean that the way it works isn't enabling. There's a reason people end up weighing twice their healthy amount. I personally think it's unhealthy to "reward" yourself with food if you aren't hungry. If you are, no big deal, but you're not going to die just because you miss a meal.

There are plenty of people on this website that don't lose, plenty that do. All I'm saying is that it's a bit rude to turn MFP into Mean Girls where the people who were 200+ pounds somehow have more valid advice than those who were maybe 60-70 pounds, or even just 20 pounds over their goal.

merrycam wrote: »

FredDoyle wrote: »

merrycam wrote: »

Serah87 wrote: »

Usually the "mean" people are the ones who lost the most weight or have kept it off. I think I will go with what they say!!! I eat back my exercise calories and sometimes plus more and I have lost 121 pounds. I think I am doing it right!!

I wouldn't place a hierarchy on who is more right just based on how much they've lost, I think that's a little more than just "mean". Nobody earns the right to be rude just because they had more weight to lose. I've lost fifty pounds doing various different things and while I gained a little back because I stalled and decided to go try MFP's way again, it doesn't negate the fact that not eating calories back works just as well as eating them back.

Some people say not eating them back or eating too little "leads" to anorexic behavior. I think that eating them back is enabling for people with binge eating disorder and binge-like behavior.

There are plenty of ways to lose weight and none of them is "right" for everyone except the basic "calories in < calories out".

Or you know, the way in which the site you're on is supposed to work.

Sure. That doesn't mean that the way it works isn't enabling. There's a reason people end up weighing twice their healthy amount.

There are lots of reasons. Following MFP's plan closely and eating back exercise calories probably isn't one.

I don't even use MFP method currently, but the idea that eating appropriately for the exercise you do (i.e., eating back exercise calories when you have a goal based on being sedentary) is "binging" is just not true.

I personally think it's unhealthy to "reward" yourself with food if you aren't hungry. If you are, no big deal, but you're not going to die just because you miss a meal.

It's not about rewarding yourself. It's about having a goal that is appropriate for your level of activity. What I hate about these discussions is the idea that it's better or more virtuous to eat less, no matter what. However you do it--exercise calories, TDEE method, whatever--it's better not to be too aggressive in your goal and not to convince yourself that not eating when possible is always better than eating.

I agree with your point on the advice and certain people not automatically deserving deference vs. others. What should matter is accuracy, not who says it. Here, though, the idea that it's an ideal to be able to do 1200 without eating back exercise calories while exercising hard an hour a day, for example, because you can manage not to be that hungry unlike those weaker people is just a really unhealthy way to look at it. And that's what these discussions always seem to fall into. Eating more is not innately bad or related to "binging."

I'm on 1200 calories a day. The days I run 30 mins I tend to eat back the 300 extra calories. If I run an hour 600 calories I don't eat them all back.
This seems to be keeping me manage my diet and actually do more exercise. Many days I have thought if I have a run I can eat a little more. This seems to work for me.
For me the difference between 1200 and 1500 calories a day seems to make quite a difference to how I feel about dieting. Therefore I will eat those calories back. On those days I hardly feel like I'm on a diet so it keeps me going for the long haul.

We are looking at a thread from July. . . .of 2013. Somebody bored?!? Able to start another thread. . . .hmmm

_Terrapin_ wrote: »

We are looking at a thread from July. . . .of 2013. Somebody bored?!? Able to start another thread. . . .hmmm

Yup.