Should you REALLY eat those exercise calories?
Options
allegoriedesoie
Posts: 26
Hello to all!
I've seen various diaries throughout MFP and I have realized A LOT eat the calories burnt while exercising. At first I thought this made sense, but then I asked my trainer and he gave me a definite answer:DO NOT EAT THOSE CALORIES BACK! When I asked him he just said, "It'd give you a bigger calorie deficit." Then I got an HRM (Polar FT7, highly recommended if you're looking into acquiring one!) and realized how MPF was OVER calculating my calories burnt! (No wonder I'd supposedly burn 1,000 calories but wasn't losing more than 1lb a week. It made no sense!) Then today an MFP buddy posted this question as his status and a lot of responses were along the lines of, "We're eating back nutrition we lost; we're losing slowly but surely," etc. etc.
SO I made it my mission--not really--to find a post or article explaining if eating those calories is a GOOD or BAD thing. I found a discussion over at CC on this topic and the person pasted quite a nice article/long quote. So decided to share it with you all. I recommend you read it because it makes PERFECT sense. And it's even making me ponder on how I calculate my calories burnt--with HRM and all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mistake #2: Overreporting the "extra" calorie expenditure of exercise
Most people count the calories they spend exercising as "extra" calories. There is a difference between calories burned while exercising and "extra" calories burned exercising. Here is an example: you burn 300 calories on the treadmill instead of your usual activity (watching TV at home); in reality, you have to subtract the calories you would have spent watching TV from these 300 calories to calculate how many additional calories you burned. Let's say that watching TV, you would have burned 80 calories. In this specific case, you have expended 300 calories while exercising, and 220 "extra" calories.
Calorie counters mindlessly add the calories burned exercising as "extra" and in some cases, this practice can significantly influence the calorie calculations. Hence, calorie software counts the part of your usual activities that overlaps with the extra activities twice.
How to estimate the "extra" calories burned exercising?
In order to make the calculations more accurate, I shall first introduce the concept of MET values. MET values are a convenient way to calculate the calorie cost of activities. MET values are multiples of the resting energy expenditure per time. In plain English, a MET = 3 means burning 3 times more calories than resting. A MET = 1 signifies how many calories you burn at rest (your Resting Metabolic Rate or Basal Metabolic Rate). Whatever you do, you burn calories at a rate of at least MET = 1 with the only exception being sleeping which has MET = 0.9. During the day, most activities include sitting and walking which have MET values between 1.2 and 3. Your total daily energy expenditure is calculated by multiplying your Resting Metabolic Rate by the average MET of all your activities. Is your head spinning?
Let's use a real world example. Consider a female person with a Resting Metabolic Rate of 1200 calories a day. One day has 1440 minutes. Our example lady is burning 1200/1440 = 0.84 calories per minute at rest, which signifies a MET = 1. Let's say our example woman just returned from an aerobics class, where she exercised for 30 minutes. General aerobic class training has a MET = 6. Our example lady has just burned 30 (minutes) x 6 (MET) * 0.84 (calories per minute) = 151 calories while exercising. Suppose our lady would have chatted on the internet instead of exercising (MET = 1.5). In this example, the woman substituted chatting on the internet with aerobic exercising. Remember, that every time you do something you substitute one activity for another. In order to get the extra calories, we have to subtract 1.5 (chatting) from 6 (exercising). Now let's calculate the extra calories: 30 (minutes) * (6 - 1.5) (MET value) * 0.84 = 113 calories.
Let's consider what a standard calorie counter would have done. First, it will assume an average calorie burn rate of 1 calorie per minute. Then the counter will find that exercising for 30 minutes will yield 30 (minutes) * 6 (MET) * 1 (calories per minute) = 180 calories. The calorie counter will add these 180 calories to your daily expenditure without considering that a part of these 180 calories is already accounted by your usual activities.
Do you now see the difference between 113 calories and 180 calories? If that woman spends 5 hours a week in that aerobics class, the standard calorie counters will overreport her calorie output by: (180-113) * 10 = 670 calories a week. The woman will be fooled that her metabolic rate has dropped while she just overestimated her calorie expenditure. Enter weight loss plateau, wasted time and efforts. Do you have the time for trial and error calorie estimations?
I've seen various diaries throughout MFP and I have realized A LOT eat the calories burnt while exercising. At first I thought this made sense, but then I asked my trainer and he gave me a definite answer:DO NOT EAT THOSE CALORIES BACK! When I asked him he just said, "It'd give you a bigger calorie deficit." Then I got an HRM (Polar FT7, highly recommended if you're looking into acquiring one!) and realized how MPF was OVER calculating my calories burnt! (No wonder I'd supposedly burn 1,000 calories but wasn't losing more than 1lb a week. It made no sense!) Then today an MFP buddy posted this question as his status and a lot of responses were along the lines of, "We're eating back nutrition we lost; we're losing slowly but surely," etc. etc.
SO I made it my mission--not really--to find a post or article explaining if eating those calories is a GOOD or BAD thing. I found a discussion over at CC on this topic and the person pasted quite a nice article/long quote. So decided to share it with you all. I recommend you read it because it makes PERFECT sense. And it's even making me ponder on how I calculate my calories burnt--with HRM and all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mistake #2: Overreporting the "extra" calorie expenditure of exercise
Most people count the calories they spend exercising as "extra" calories. There is a difference between calories burned while exercising and "extra" calories burned exercising. Here is an example: you burn 300 calories on the treadmill instead of your usual activity (watching TV at home); in reality, you have to subtract the calories you would have spent watching TV from these 300 calories to calculate how many additional calories you burned. Let's say that watching TV, you would have burned 80 calories. In this specific case, you have expended 300 calories while exercising, and 220 "extra" calories.
Calorie counters mindlessly add the calories burned exercising as "extra" and in some cases, this practice can significantly influence the calorie calculations. Hence, calorie software counts the part of your usual activities that overlaps with the extra activities twice.
How to estimate the "extra" calories burned exercising?
In order to make the calculations more accurate, I shall first introduce the concept of MET values. MET values are a convenient way to calculate the calorie cost of activities. MET values are multiples of the resting energy expenditure per time. In plain English, a MET = 3 means burning 3 times more calories than resting. A MET = 1 signifies how many calories you burn at rest (your Resting Metabolic Rate or Basal Metabolic Rate). Whatever you do, you burn calories at a rate of at least MET = 1 with the only exception being sleeping which has MET = 0.9. During the day, most activities include sitting and walking which have MET values between 1.2 and 3. Your total daily energy expenditure is calculated by multiplying your Resting Metabolic Rate by the average MET of all your activities. Is your head spinning?
Let's use a real world example. Consider a female person with a Resting Metabolic Rate of 1200 calories a day. One day has 1440 minutes. Our example lady is burning 1200/1440 = 0.84 calories per minute at rest, which signifies a MET = 1. Let's say our example woman just returned from an aerobics class, where she exercised for 30 minutes. General aerobic class training has a MET = 6. Our example lady has just burned 30 (minutes) x 6 (MET) * 0.84 (calories per minute) = 151 calories while exercising. Suppose our lady would have chatted on the internet instead of exercising (MET = 1.5). In this example, the woman substituted chatting on the internet with aerobic exercising. Remember, that every time you do something you substitute one activity for another. In order to get the extra calories, we have to subtract 1.5 (chatting) from 6 (exercising). Now let's calculate the extra calories: 30 (minutes) * (6 - 1.5) (MET value) * 0.84 = 113 calories.
Let's consider what a standard calorie counter would have done. First, it will assume an average calorie burn rate of 1 calorie per minute. Then the counter will find that exercising for 30 minutes will yield 30 (minutes) * 6 (MET) * 1 (calories per minute) = 180 calories. The calorie counter will add these 180 calories to your daily expenditure without considering that a part of these 180 calories is already accounted by your usual activities.
Do you now see the difference between 113 calories and 180 calories? If that woman spends 5 hours a week in that aerobics class, the standard calorie counters will overreport her calorie output by: (180-113) * 10 = 670 calories a week. The woman will be fooled that her metabolic rate has dropped while she just overestimated her calorie expenditure. Enter weight loss plateau, wasted time and efforts. Do you have the time for trial and error calorie estimations?
0
Replies
-
i dont think what you say is correct. i have eaten the calories i worked off and hace lost over 60lbs and it works fine.
sounds to complicated your way and i cant make sence of it0 -
It depends on what your daily calorie goal is and how much you burn during exercise. If your goal is 1200 calories and you burn 800 from exercise your body only gets 400 calories to use. That's not nearly enough. Now, if your goal is 1550 and you burn 200, that's probably fine. But a lot of people are under their calorie goal and not eating their exercise calories, and not losing any weight as a result.
I don't care what your trainer told you, starvation mode is real. It happened to me. Once I started eating the right amount of calories, including eating back my exercise calories (just like my trainer told me to) I started losing. It's not the two pounds a week that a lot of people want, but 12 pounds in three months is a healthy rate of loss.0 -
If you dont have to dont do it. If its hard for you, just eat 1/2 of your exercise.0
-
WOW!!!! thanx for the explanation i was a bit confused as to the eating back of the exercise cals but now i know lol, i generally dont eat ALL of my exercise cals bak but i will be leaving them alone as much as poss now
best wishes
Kirstie xx
BUMP:drinker:0 -
Sounds good to me. I don't eat my exercise calories. I just eat whatever I'm supposed to for the day, given a 100 - 200 leeway for days I feel a little more hungry. Then I do random calorie expenditures on different days, everyday, ranging anywhere between 1000 - 3000+ calories burned.
That's just what I do for me. I personally never saw a reason to consume so damn much in one day. That's how I got fat in the first place.0 -
wow- simple ol' person like myself just can't understand that article--- way too confusing
0 -
this whole thing just makes my head hurt even more then it already did. everyone i know on here eats their work out cals and have lost A LOT of weight. i think it works just fine. "slow and steady" is the way to lose weight. unless of course you just want to gain it all back- then sure. starve yourself0
-
wow I am sooooo glad I read this!!!!0
-
I'm with you, I have done weight watchers, and I was told to never eat exercise cals. I just assumed you would lose my weight. So I'm not planning on going over my cals for the day, no matter the exercise burn0
-
my trainer said do NOT eat the calories back either!! I just do what I need to do!! If im hungry and I have only exercise calories left then I eat some but if I am not hungry I am not going to cram 300 calories in before bed!! Why force myself to eat when I am not hungry? Unless of course I just eat mcds for dinner!! that would solve this problem wouldnt?? haha NOPE0
-
If you're eating your maintenance calories and exercising on top, don't eat your exercise calories. If you're calculating your weight loss before adding in exercise, i.e. you're in a calorie deficit and will lose weight even if you don't exercise, you can eat your exercise calories.0
-
I understand what the article is saying but my big problem is with the "wasted time and efforts" part. Exercising and getting fit is NEVER wasted time and effort in my mind. Sure I want to lose weight and I could do that by not eating. However, I'm also in this for a healthy heart, mind AND body so all my exercise is not wasted. I get as excited about having to work harder to get my heart rate into the target zone as I do about seeing the changes in the scale.0
-
i dont think what you say is correct. i have eaten the calories i worked off and hace lost over 60lbs and it works fine.
sounds to complicated your way and i cant make sence of it
I'm not saying anything, really. All I did was quote the article. Besides, I never said you wouldn't lose weight. I lost over 70lbs without exercising--but a lot of that weight was muscle instead of fat.
The article basically said if you log in 300 calories burnt because you when on a walk as opposed to burning 50 calories watching TV, then in reality you didn't burn 300 but just 250. It's that simple.0 -
I'm so confused!0
-
I have eaten all my exercise cals (based on my HRM) and am steadily losing 2 pounds a week like clockwork. Joined MFP 01/03/11 and have lost 8 pounds in the first 4 weeks. Not all trainers are as well versed in the body chemistry as they have you believe. I worked with a personal trainer in the past and didn't lose very much at all. She pushed me, even if she was my girlfriend. Workout time all bets were off.
Read these:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/10589-for-those-confused-or-questioning-eating-your-exercise-calo
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/9433-expectations
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/777-why-is-starvation-mode-so-bad0 -
no. you burnt 300. it was just done by working out and not sitting on your *kitten*. its that simplei dont think what you say is correct. i have eaten the calories i worked off and hace lost over 60lbs and it works fine.
sounds to complicated your way and i cant make sence of it
I'm not saying anything, really. All I did was quote the article. Besides, I never said you wouldn't lose weight. I lost over 70lbs without exercising--but a lot of that weight was muscle instead of fat.
The article basically said if you log in 300 calories burnt because you when on a walk as opposed to burning 50 calories watching TV, then in reality you didn't burn 300 but just 250. It's that simple.0 -
If you are creating muscle, you are increasing your BMR. Maintenance on actin and myosin is expensive, let alone all the glycogen synthesis, the creatinine, etc. Muscle even loses heat more quickly than fat. Muscle is energy-expensive in every way, which is a good thing for those of us who want to lose weight.
Not to mention, if you are doing anaerobic exercise you are creating lactate. Lactate builds up in your muscles and requires energy to clear and to turn back into glucose, which is then burnt... it's even less efficient (which is what we want). Not to mention muscle repair, the alpha adrenergics, epinephrine, immune suppression, etc. All of that costs (or saves) energy, and it is almost completely beneficial for losing weight. The main issue with exercise is hunger, but if you can control that then you're all good.
When physicists and chemists start doing metabolic calculations, they run into a brick wall because they don't understand physiology. Did you know an extra ketchup packet a day will make you obese by the time you are forty? No it won't, because of homeostasis, but if you simply multiply 20 cal. * 365.25 days in a year * 20 years = 41.74 lbs. of fat you might think it could be true -- that many pounds would put the average person into the obese category. Like I said, your body adjusts within a range, and homeostasis means you never notice the extra 20 calories (unless you got the extra 400 from the fries at the same time). So it doesn't work the way you think it should. Did you know that even thinking intensely can burn more calories? Ask my fellow med students... you'll have your chance this summer, they will officially be your doctors.
The truth of the matter is, and it honestly is this simple: E.V.E.R.Y.O.N.E I.S. D.I.F.F.E.R.E.N.T. Say it after me.
Physiology =/= physics. If physiology obeyed physics strictly then we'd all be dead.
(I would see a physicist's point if he/she argued me on that.
I'd then simply ask them about the origin of biology,
and listen politely while they sputter and handwave.)0 -
I have eaten all my exercise cals (based on my HRM) and am steadily losing 2 pounds a week like clockwork. Joined MFP 01/03/11 and have lost 8 pounds in the first 4 weeks. Not all trainers are as well versed in the body chemistry as they have you believe. I worked with a personal trainer in the past and didn't lose very much at all. She pushed me, even if she was my girlfriend. Workout time all bets were off.
Read these:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/10589-for-those-confused-or-questioning-eating-your-exercise-calo
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/9433-expectations
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/777-why-is-starvation-mode-so-bad
I joined this site on January 11th and I have lost 8 pounds and I havent been eating my exercise calories back!! and Im not losing muscle Im gaining it!!0 -
It makes total sense. I think you'd be better though eating SOME of your exercise calories back.
Personally, I subtract 10% from my calories burned and then log that amount (heart rate monitor says 500 calories burned- I only log 450 burned on MFP). Of those 450 that I log, I eat back approx 300 or so.0 -
This makes sense. If your body naturally burns 100 calories in an hour (BMR), but you workout and your HRM says "300 Calories", then it seems appropriate to subtract the 100 calories you would have burned anyways, which yields 200 "net" exercise calories. Thanks for sharing!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions