My take on exercise calories (please read if you are new!!)

245

Replies

  • lolabugs
    lolabugs Posts: 141
    I really appreciate your explanation. I do have a question for you or whoever can answer it. When I first started losing weight I didn't realize that I was supposed to be eating back the calories I burned at the gym. When I started eating more I ended up gaining weight. I always made sure to stay within my allotted calories. What could have caused this? It probably depends on what I was eating, but I wasn't eating a lot of simple carbs or saturated fats.
  • Celo24
    Celo24 Posts: 566 Member
    I really appreciate your explanation. I do have a question for you or whoever can answer it. When I first started losing weight I didn't realize that I was supposed to be eating back the calories I burned at the gym. When I started eating more I ended up gaining weight. I always made sure to stay within my allotted calories. What could have caused this? It probably depends on what I was eating, but I wasn't eating a lot of simple carbs or saturated fats.

    Hard to say without more info. How much water are you drinking? How's your sodium intake? What kind of things are you eating? One thing that is always helpful is opening up your food diary - at least to your friends - so people can see what you are doing and give you suggestions.
  • jaysvw
    jaysvw Posts: 11 Member
    Great thread Celo! Eating back exercise calories is essential.
  • CARNAT22
    CARNAT22 Posts: 764 Member
    I would say that for 90% of the time I have stuck to my calories (when I have gone over it's been by a few hundred cals) and I eat my exercise calories too.

    I have lost 8lbs in 5 weeks so at present this works for me and I am sticking to it! I have already hit the mini goal I set myself for 31st March :-)
  • rydn4h2o
    rydn4h2o Posts: 255
    bump
  • TanyaLee122175
    TanyaLee122175 Posts: 67 Member
    bump.... that was a really helpful explanation thank you
  • ruckerlk
    ruckerlk Posts: 2 Member
    awesome! i've only been doing this for a few days...and i thought I wasn't supposed to eat back my exercise calories...
    good to know I can allow myself a little more than a salad for lunch and yogurt for breakfast (i only have 1200 cal for a normal day)
    thank goodness, because I'm a long distance runner...and I thought that was odd. 1200 calories, and trying to do a 10km every other day.....it didn't add up.

    thank you!
  • anna6500
    anna6500 Posts: 6 Member
    Thanks for the information. I'm only on my 3rd day here, so I'm glad to have read this before I got a chance to hit a plateau. I can now continue on this journey a lot better informed than when I began.
    Thanks again!
  • HartJames
    HartJames Posts: 789 Member
    This theroy does not work for everyone and I have been trying to track down exactly why. One thing I found was a study explaining why obese people can live off of fewer than average calories during dieting and still not cannbalize muscle. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615 Interesting. I also wonder if some of the problem may lie in the calculations of an individuals BMR and how accurate that may be. It can only at best be an average, what if you fall to the extreme end of the average (as I do) in for instance your resting heart rate (very low in my case)? It MUST play into you caloric needs. Anyone here have some real answers explaining why "eating back" calories may not work for everyone I'd be glad to hear it!

    That said, I do agree it is the most sustainable way to lose weight (if it works for you beyond the first 10-20 pounds most will lose from simply reducing sodium and comsuming healthier food alone but may mistakinly judge as attributed to whatever method they are applying?) and begin your weight loss jouney. To me it means you get to eat more when you exercise and that would make weight loss easier (for me anyways, I LOVE to eat!). But, where to go when/if it stops working? I have had to cycle through zig zagging cals, adjusting macro nutrients, eating cleaner, working out differently, taking a diet break, decreasing /increasing cals many many times and something different eventually works everytime. Right now I am back to trying the eat back calories theroy and so far I am stuck. Frustrating to say the least.
  • jeneren
    jeneren Posts: 10
    I've only been here for a few days and have seen this written about alot. I must say it's the first time I've ever been advised to eat back my exercise calories - this is a whole new concept! Not sure what to make of it...clearly it is working for many of you.

    So much conflicting advice over the years, so many diets, so many theories!

    Good clean whole food and cardio/strength training is the answer - how much of these vary from person to person I guess.

    Getting it right for ourselves is what we are all trying to do.

    Thank you for the info & explanation.

    Jen
  • morningmom
    morningmom Posts: 100
    Thanks so much for explaining that....very helpful!
  • SarahJaneDeschamp
    SarahJaneDeschamp Posts: 359 Member
    This is the best explanation ever :)

    Thanks x
  • Barelmy
    Barelmy Posts: 590 Member
    I agree completely. MFP only gives me 1420 calories to work with each day and that's to lose 1/2 pound a week while living a sedentary lifestyle (I work 50 hours a week at a desk). That is just not enough calories to sustain me if I'm also working out 6 days a week. I eat back my calories. In fact it motivates me to work out, since it means more leniency when it comes to meal planning. Now if I don't work out, I feel like bummed because I have to watch my calorie intake extra hard.

    I'm like that.:D I always really look forwards to Thursdays, because my krav classes mean I get to eat lots of high protein, high fat foods.
  • daddyratty
    daddyratty Posts: 305 Member
    Well said. Also, the daily quota actually IS affected by the number of times you plan to work out in a week. My daily calorie goal went down when I told it I was only exercising 3 times per week instead of 4.
  • CWRose
    CWRose Posts: 62
    I think you put that very well!!! Nice explanation. And many congrats on lbs lost. :)
  • hollyyoung71
    hollyyoung71 Posts: 70 Member
    I was told to look at my body like a fire... if you add to much wood, your going to snuff the fire out.. if you do not add enough wood, the fire is going to burn out... Thought this was great!

    Thank you for that wonderful post... just makes me want to go to the gym and kick my butt even harder so I get more calories to eat...haha!
  • CWRose
    CWRose Posts: 62
    I don't know how true this is but I've also heard that in the first couple weeks of eating recommended calories that one can actually gain weight intially, but that while it's doing that it also resets the metabolism rate back to what it's supposed to be. Which would be great if that is true, but i'm kinda in the middle of what your talking about also. Mixing it up I think is the best since everyone bodies and metabolisms are different. And the bmi I agree has to be just an average because it also does't account for bone structure which can make a difference. The Dr. office told me my healthy weight based on height, weight, build, and body mass should be between 135-145, mfp said between 111-132. So again I agree, but, at least its a decent starting point... hahaha

    I also know that calories burned on gym equipment such elipticals or treadmills etc. are based on starting weight of 150 lbs., if you weigh more than that you are burning more than what the machine says. Just a tip for those who may not know. So, when your working hard your results could actually be even better. :)
  • Randee75
    Randee75 Posts: 234
    I very much agree...........thanks for posting for everyone.
  • daddyratty
    daddyratty Posts: 305 Member
    I also know that calories burned on gym equipment such elipticals or treadmills etc. are based on starting weight of 150 lbs., if you weigh more than that you are burning more than what the machine says. Just a tip for those who may not know. So, when your working hard your results could actually be even better. :)

    Yes, and while not an exact formula, you can typically increase the calories burned by the same ratio as the increase in weight. For instance, 165 is 10% higher, so you would burn about 10% more calories at the same level of exertion.
  • zandhmom75
    zandhmom75 Posts: 58 Member
    I do agree that MFP starts us out with a deficit and perhaps all exercise calories should be eaten. The real problem comes in trying to accurately come up with how many calories were actually burned. I know that I can go for a 45 minute FAST walk in a very hilly neighborhood and my HRM will say I burned something like 450 calories. If I put in a fast walk into MFP it will give me over 600 calories. Which of those do I trust. Personally, I really feel like both are probably overestimates. I don't want to eat 600 extra calories for a 45 minute walk. If I would have been sitting around the house for that 45 minutes I would have burned about 70-80 calories so I definitely need to subtract these from whatever I "eat back". I don't know if everyone does this, but regardless of how badly I want to credit myself with a tremendous amount of calories burned, it doesn't help my weight loss if the number isn't accurate. I usually give myself half of what my HRM says and try to eat that much. It keeps my net calories around 1200. I know that heart rate monitors are the best estimate we have, but even they just estimate. There is really no way to know.
    [/quote



    I always wonder about this, too. I don't want to enter some crazy amount of calories if I may not have actually burned that many. I don't enter housework, or any other activities, unless they are vigorous. I guess no one can know how many calories they've burned with complete accuracy. I eat most of my exercise calories back, but usually not all, just to be safe.
  • neesono
    neesono Posts: 61
    Ok just so I'm clear on this (I just started), I should do my best to make sure that my NET calories are equal to my daily calorie allowance?

    At the moment I've got a daily goal of 1360. My food intake has been 1119, exercise took off 543, and my NET is telling my 576. So do I need to get that NET value up to 1360?
  • NicNac86
    NicNac86 Posts: 130
    Ok just so I'm clear on this (I just started), I should do my best to make sure that my NET calories are equal to my daily calorie allowance?

    At the moment I've got a daily goal of 1360. My food intake has been 1119, exercise took off 543, and my NET is telling my 576. So do I need to get that NET value up to 1360?

    Or at least over 1200, yes.
  • Celo24
    Celo24 Posts: 566 Member
    Ok just so I'm clear on this (I just started), I should do my best to make sure that my NET calories are equal to my daily calorie allowance?

    At the moment I've got a daily goal of 1360. My food intake has been 1119, exercise took off 543, and my NET is telling my 576. So do I need to get that NET value up to 1360?

    Yup. NET should be the 1360. If not right at it, get as close as you can.
  • thesimsisters
    thesimsisters Posts: 73 Member
    This theroy does not work for everyone and I have been trying to track down exactly why. One thing I found was a study explaining why obese people can live off of fewer than average calories during dieting and still not cannbalize muscle. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615 Interesting. I also wonder if some of the problem may lie in the calculations of an individuals BMR and how accurate that may be. It can only at best be an average, what if you fall to the extreme end of the average (as I do) in for instance your resting heart rate (very low in my case)? It MUST play into you caloric needs. Anyone here have some real answers explaining why "eating back" calories may not work for everyone I'd be glad to hear it!

    That said, I do agree it is the most sustainable way to lose weight (if it works for you beyond the first 10-20 pounds most will lose from simply reducing sodium and comsuming healthier food alone but may mistakinly judge as attributed to whatever method they are applying?) and begin your weight loss jouney. To me it means you get to eat more when you exercise and that would make weight loss easier (for me anyways, I LOVE to eat!). But, where to go when/if it stops working? I have had to cycle through zig zagging cals, adjusting macro nutrients, eating cleaner, working out differently, taking a diet break, decreasing /increasing cals many many times and something different eventually works everytime. Right now I am back to trying the eat back calories theroy and so far I am stuck. Frustrating to say the least.

    I can so understand where you are coming from. I had no problems in the beginning losing weight and the smaller I got the harder it got. I'd have to vary stuff and it would work for a while then I'd have to change it. I agree, it is very frustrating. I keep thinking I should know how to do this whole thing by now but stuff stops working and I'm right back to having to work it out again. And of course, the closer to goal the shorter it seems my system works.

    I've never eaten back my exercise calories and I'm hoping this will help with the problems I've been having the last couple weeks. I started it yesterday evening after reading about it on here and it was weird eating those exercise calories back, I had so much food lol! It just seems so wrong to burn those calories and eat them back...I guess that why so many resist it. I know that I still am fighting the idea of it!

    Crossing my fingers...let's see how this goes.
  • neesono
    neesono Posts: 61
    Ok just so I'm clear on this (I just started), I should do my best to make sure that my NET calories are equal to my daily calorie allowance?

    At the moment I've got a daily goal of 1360. My food intake has been 1119, exercise took off 543, and my NET is telling my 576. So do I need to get that NET value up to 1360?

    Yup. NET should be the 1360. If not right at it, get as close as you can.

    Ok. Thank you for clearing that up. Ok so my remaining (784) plus my NET (576) equals my 1360 for the day. So if I hit my daily goal then I'm doing ok? I'm not sure why I can't get my head around this lol
  • charlene77
    charlene77 Posts: 250 Member
    Good post. I don't make myself eat back all the calories. I find that when I have a small burn I don't need to, but with larger burns I can actually feel I need it. I listen to my body and eat the fuel it needs. I tend to hover 1400-1500 cals, but with big workout I'll eat a banana, one slice of toast with peanut butter and some water.
  • Celo24
    Celo24 Posts: 566 Member
    Ok just so I'm clear on this (I just started), I should do my best to make sure that my NET calories are equal to my daily calorie allowance?

    At the moment I've got a daily goal of 1360. My food intake has been 1119, exercise took off 543, and my NET is telling my 576. So do I need to get that NET value up to 1360?

    Yup. NET should be the 1360. If not right at it, get as close as you can.

    Ok. Thank you for clearing that up. Ok so my remaining (784) plus my NET (576) equals my 1360 for the day. So if I hit my daily goal then I'm doing ok? I'm not sure why I can't get my head around this lol

    That's right. And don't worry...it seems counterintuitive to a lot of people but it does work. Also, don't stress out if you are a little short. Just do the best you can. That's especially true on days when you burn a TON of calories. I have some workouts that burn 1300+ calories and there is NO way that I can possibly eat all of those back. Good luck! I'm sure you'll do great.
  • NicNac86
    NicNac86 Posts: 130
    Think of it like your wage slip or paycheck.

    You have your gross income (income before tax etc)

    Then you have all your deductions (tax etc).

    Then you have your net wage (take home pay).

    So, the calories you eat are you gross income, the exercise you do are your deductions. Your net calories are the calories you've eaten (gross pay) minus the calories you've burned exercising (taxes), leaving you your net calories (take home pay) :smile:

    As long as your net calories are over 1200 or close to your daily goal (whatever that may be) you should be fine.
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    Think of it like your wage slip or paycheck.

    You have your gross income (income before tax etc)

    Then you have all your deductions (tax etc).

    Then you have your net wage (take home pay).

    So, the calories you eat are you gross income, the exercise you do are your deductions. Your net calories are the calories you've eaten (gross pay) minus the calories you've burned exercising (taxes), leaving you your net calories (take home pay) :smile:

    As long as your net calories are over 1200 or close to your daily goal (whatever that may be) you should be fine.

    The 1200 part is rubbing me the wrong way. for MEN 1200 is not the number, that's the floor for women based on the WHO study done in the 80's, for MEN it's 1500 as an average (although I've heard 1600 too), but each person will be a little different. Just because MFP allows you a number, doen't mean it's safe, conversly, not every woman needs 1200 to be safe, smaller, obese women (say a 4'11" woman who is obese, could probably safely eat below 1200 and still lose weight in a healthy manner) I'm just saying, please don't throw around this 1200 number to much, it's pretty much arbitrary and only should be used for women.
  • spoiledwifenikki
    spoiledwifenikki Posts: 92
    thank you you helped me understand
This discussion has been closed.

Categories