How many more calories can I eat for every 100 calories burned.

Options
cfpcyclist
cfpcyclist Posts: 30 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
What's is the proper ratio?

I remember reading in the NYT that just because you burned an extra 500 calories (cardio) exercising, you can't go out and eat another 500 calories and expect to maintain. The example they gave was this: if eating 2000 calories a day would lead to dropping a pound a week, burning 500 calories doing cardio and eating 2500 calories would be LESS effective.

Has anyone else hear this too? If so, what is the proper calories added for each calorie burned?
«1

Replies

  • glevinso
    glevinso Posts: 1,895 Member
    Options
    Huh? How do they figure that? If you *actually* burned 500 calories cycling and you wish to maintain, then yes you should eat back 500 calories.

    The issue arises when we try to calculate exactly how much you burned doing the activity. That is not a precise science and there really is no way to measure exactly (on a bike with a power meter you can get VERY close though).

    Regardless if you are on a 2000 calorie maintenance diet, and you *actually* burned 500 calories, yes you want to eat 2500 that day.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    is this a trick question?
  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    Options
    100
  • yopeeps025
    yopeeps025 Posts: 8,680 Member
    Options
    Nope never heard that.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    cfpcyclist wrote: »
    What's is the proper ratio?

    I remember reading in the NYT that just because you burned an extra 500 calories (cardio) exercising, you can't go out and eat another 500 calories and expect to maintain. The example they gave was this: if eating 2000 calories a day would lead to dropping a pound a week, burning 500 calories doing cardio and eating 2500 calories would be LESS effective.

    Has anyone else hear this too? If so, what is the proper calories added for each calorie burned?

    their math is wrong...

    2500 calories consumed - 500 calories burned = 2000 net which assuming that is a 500 calorie deficit would result in one pound per week loss...
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    Options
    cfpcyclist wrote: »
    What's is the proper ratio?

    I remember reading in the NYT that just because you burned an extra 500 calories (cardio) exercising, you can't go out and eat another 500 calories and expect to maintain. The example they gave was this: if eating 2000 calories a day would lead to dropping a pound a week, burning 500 calories doing cardio and eating 2500 calories would be LESS effective.

    Has anyone else hear this too? If so, what is the proper calories added for each calorie burned?

    It would be less effective in that if you didn't eat it you could lose 2 lbs a week. But that's only one aspect of effectiveness because eating at too steep a deficit can cause you to burn out, quit, etc. If you are happy losing the 1 pound, eat the exercise calories.
  • wjstoj
    wjstoj Posts: 884 Member
    Options
    99
  • GuyIncognito123
    GuyIncognito123 Posts: 263 Member
    Options
    Math skills aside... someone pointed out to me once, if you're maintaining at 2200 per day, that's probably 100 an hour just breathing. If you work out for an hour and your 'highly accurate machine' says you burned 500 then you'll need to remove the 100 for being alive, which brings it to 400 you actually burned (or remove the 100 from your 2200 - same difference).
  • glevinso
    glevinso Posts: 1,895 Member
    Options
    GuyIncognito123 wrote: »
    Math skills aside... someone pointed out to me once, if you're maintaining at 2200 per day, that's probably 100 an hour just breathing. If you work out for an hour and your 'highly accurate machine' says you burned 500 then you'll need to remove the 100 for being alive, which brings it to 400 you actually burned (or remove the 100 from your 2200 - same difference).

    That depends on whether or not the algorithm used to calculate the calorie burn takes your base metabolism into effect. The reality is that these algorithms are not *that* accurate and your base metabolism is within the margin of error.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    GuyIncognito123 wrote: »
    Math skills aside... someone pointed out to me once, if you're maintaining at 2200 per day, that's probably 100 an hour just breathing. If you work out for an hour and your 'highly accurate machine' says you burned 500 then you'll need to remove the 100 for being alive, which brings it to 400 you actually burned (or remove the 100 from your 2200 - same difference).

    you are giving too much accuracy to "estimations"
  • JoRocka
    JoRocka Posts: 17,525 Member
    edited May 2015
    Options
    I'm not sure I understand the question.
  • fatcity66
    fatcity66 Posts: 1,544 Member
    Options
    GuyIncognito123 wrote: »
    Math skills aside... someone pointed out to me once, if you're maintaining at 2200 per day, that's probably 100 an hour just breathing. If you work out for an hour and your 'highly accurate machine' says you burned 500 then you'll need to remove the 100 for being alive, which brings it to 400 you actually burned (or remove the 100 from your 2200 - same difference).

    Yes, I understand some people actually subtract their BMR calories for the time they workout, to get their burned exercise calories. What blew me away was that they assumed everyone did that. I told them I didn't think that was the case...
  • glevinso
    glevinso Posts: 1,895 Member
    Options
    JoRocka wrote: »
    I'm not sure I understand the question.

    To paraphrase it seems as if he is asking if 1+1 really is 2
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    if runner A leaves Milwaukee at ten am and runs a five minute mile, and runner B leaves Milwaukee at 10:15 am and runs a six minute mile, how long will it take runner A and B to get to Chicago, and how many calories will they burn?
  • GuyIncognito123
    GuyIncognito123 Posts: 263 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    GuyIncognito123 wrote: »
    Math skills aside... someone pointed out to me once, if you're maintaining at 2200 per day, that's probably 100 an hour just breathing. If you work out for an hour and your 'highly accurate machine' says you burned 500 then you'll need to remove the 100 for being alive, which brings it to 400 you actually burned (or remove the 100 from your 2200 - same difference).

    you are giving too much accuracy to "estimations"

    Yes and no. I knew it screwed me up because I weigh everything when I'm eating and make those numbers as accurate as possible yet everything else (TDEE and exercise) are a crap shoot and a guess at best. When I bought my HRM (Polar FT) I thought it was going to give me accurate numbers but, after looking at the numbers - if it says I burn 500 in an hour, I subtract the 100 for breathing plus another 100 for it patting me on the back and conclude I only burned 300.

    But back to the OP, my numbers tell me I can only eat back 300 calories for every 500 burned. Roughly 60% based on one hour of exercise.
  • glevinso
    glevinso Posts: 1,895 Member
    Options
    If you are trying to lose weight, backing off the estimation is a reasonable thing to do since if you lose at *slightly* higher rate than expected, that is perfectly fine. If you are trying to maintain, especially if your main activity is a high-calorie-burner like cycling, it can be much harder. Most of the time no matter how much I try to avoid it, I lose weight during the spring and summer months, backs off a bit in the fall (unless I have a marathon in there), then I put some back on over the winter.
  • JoRocka
    JoRocka Posts: 17,525 Member
    Options
    glevinso wrote: »
    JoRocka wrote: »
    I'm not sure I understand the question.

    To paraphrase it seems as if he is asking if 1+1 really is 2

    I mean I kind of thought that's what it was... I guess perhaps just over thinking?
  • cfpcyclist
    cfpcyclist Posts: 30 Member
    Options
    Given done of the feedback, I went looking for the article(s) I vaguely recall.

    I am not sure I have found it yet but here are a few that impact this concept:

    CALORIES ARE UNDERSTATED ON FOOD LABELS. EATING MORE CALORIES COMPOUNDS THE PROBLEM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/opinion/calorie-detective.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

    THE TYPE OF CALORIES YOU EAT EFFECT HOW YOU BASELINE CALORIE CONSUMPTION DROPS AS YOU SHEAD WEIGHT http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/opinion/sunday/what-really-makes-us-fat.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share
  • glevinso
    glevinso Posts: 1,895 Member
    Options
    Well the food labels can be off by as much as 20%. As can the calorie burn estimates on even the "most accurate" devices. So we are left with a potential 40% margin of error on any number we work with. That is beyond massive. Best thing to do is be as consistent as you can and develop your own baseline readings.
  • JoRocka
    JoRocka Posts: 17,525 Member
    Options
    While there are technically EXACT numbers- being able to actually get those exact numbers is just never going to happen- there are to many variables for us to accurately track.

    So as a good rule of thumb- if you aren't doing TDEE_ you're doing the NEAT/NEET method- you should guess high on food- and low on calories burned- it's a safer bet if you're trying to lose weight- and vice versa for gaining weight.

    So on paper- and in reality - 1 + 1 DOES = 2- except we don't know that one is really THAT one- or a different one- so you build yourself a factor of safety.

    they are two different conversations essentially.

Categories