negative 10 net calories

Options
rAc_hEl
rAc_hEl Posts: 246 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
so far ive got 1275 calories planned for the day and i have 1285 (according to mfp) calories burned off (i biked for 2 hours im 202 pounds female.) My question is how much should i eat back?

Replies

  • JagerLewis
    JagerLewis Posts: 427 Member
    Options
    I would say at least half. But don't gorge yourself either. There have been a couple of times when I have burned an insane amount and wasn't able to catch up with my net calories.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    I've been eating about 600 additional calories on exercise days.
  • missiontofitness
    missiontofitness Posts: 4,074 Member
    Options
    1,200 sounds low per day.
    You also shouldn't be eating back half, because then you will be netting only 600 for the day.
    At minimum, you should be eating 1,200 per day. But I'm 100% positive you can up your calories more and still have consistent losses. 1,200 is good for someone who is morbidly obese and sedentary, or someone who is under 5'. You're active andyou exercise, so make sure you are eating enough to fuel yourself properly.
  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,151 Member
    Options
    If your caloric allotment is 1275 and you earned another 1285, then eating back half the exercise calories (gives room for miscalculations), you would have 1917.
  • missiontofitness
    missiontofitness Posts: 4,074 Member
    edited November 2014
    Options
    .
  • mereditheve
    mereditheve Posts: 142 Member
    Options
    Are you sure you burned 1,285 calories biking for 2 hours? What did you use to calculate this?
  • missiontofitness
    missiontofitness Posts: 4,074 Member
    Options
    mereditheve wrote: »
    Are you sure you burned 1,285 calories biking for 2 hours? What did you use to calculate this?

    OP said they used MFP.
  • SnuggleSmacks
    SnuggleSmacks Posts: 3,731 Member
    Options
    missiontofitness wrote: »
    mereditheve wrote: »
    Are you sure you burned 1,285 calories biking for 2 hours? What did you use to calculate this?

    OP said they used MFP.

    And that's why it's recommended to only eat back half. A more accurate way to measure would allow the OP to eat all of the exercise calories back. MFP overestimates badly, in some instances.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    mereditheve wrote: »
    Are you sure you burned 1,285 calories biking for 2 hours? What did you use to calculate this?

    Seems consistent with the tools that estimate calories. I see a lot of people disputing the tools, but it doesn't seem like the researchers who created them are buying it.
  • fatcity66
    fatcity66 Posts: 1,544 Member
    edited November 2014
    Options
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    mereditheve wrote: »
    Are you sure you burned 1,285 calories biking for 2 hours? What did you use to calculate this?

    Seems consistent with the tools that estimate calories. I see a lot of people disputing the tools, but it doesn't seem like the researchers who created them are buying it.

    I think it depends on the person, but I'm having no problem losing now, even when I eat back all my calories, PROVIDED I don't go over on other days. I was struggling a lot last month, so I'm not sure if something else changed that I just can't pinpoint. I'm right at 200lbs, and MFP says I burn about 800 calories/hr on the elliptical.
  • BarbWhite09
    BarbWhite09 Posts: 1,128 Member
    Options
    If you are hungry, eat. Stop eating when you are comfortable. Some days you may just have a really low day like this. As long as it is not a regular thing, you should be just fine. I really would not worry about it. :) Good job on your calorie burn!
  • mereditheve
    mereditheve Posts: 142 Member
    Options
    missiontofitness wrote: »
    mereditheve wrote: »
    Are you sure you burned 1,285 calories biking for 2 hours? What did you use to calculate this?

    OP said they used MFP.

    Thanks... so that brings me to my point... it may not be accurate. Let's say you were biking downhill, or on a stationary bike that provided little resistance and you used momentum... you may have burned a lot less than you think. I would not take MFP's estimates as gospel.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    mereditheve wrote: »

    Thanks... so that brings me to my point... it may not be accurate. Let's say you were biking downhill, or on a stationary bike that provided little resistance and you used momentum... you may have burned a lot less than you think. I would not take MFP's estimates as gospel.

    Never ride down a hill that you didn't climb.
  • PrizePopple
    PrizePopple Posts: 3,133 Member
    Options
    mereditheve wrote: »
    missiontofitness wrote: »
    mereditheve wrote: »
    Are you sure you burned 1,285 calories biking for 2 hours? What did you use to calculate this?

    OP said they used MFP.

    Thanks... so that brings me to my point... it may not be accurate. Let's say you were biking downhill, or on a stationary bike that provided little resistance and you used momentum... you may have burned a lot less than you think. I would not take MFP's estimates as gospel.

    I went to a few pages and looked at what they were saying the caloric burn for a 200 pound person is, and I came up with 1,093-1,200 calories for 2 hours. So MFP likely over estimated a little, but that could also be if the OP took into consideration her distance traveled. The numbers I pulled were for roughly 10-14 miles per hour.

    The likely overestimation on the part of MFP is also why people advise to only eat back about half the calories when using that method.

Categories