Should I eat all the extra calories burnt during exercise?
lpd11
Posts: 10 Member
What's your opinion of eating all of your calories?
I run 3 times a week and gym 3 times a week, according to the exercise calculator can burn up to an extra 1400 calories on a long run day, so I have been eating my 'extra's' and keeping to my 500 cal deficit.
Should I be gobbling them all up or not?
I run 3 times a week and gym 3 times a week, according to the exercise calculator can burn up to an extra 1400 calories on a long run day, so I have been eating my 'extra's' and keeping to my 500 cal deficit.
Should I be gobbling them all up or not?
0
Replies
-
Suggestions run anywhere from eating 25 to 75% back. You could probably start with eating back half and tracking the impact on your weight.0
-
Well you have to definitely make sure that you're burning off as much as you think you are, otherwise you'll be eating more than your allowance and not lose any weight. If you are going to eat it all back again, don't eat chocolate and sweets, eat healthy fruit an veggies
0 -
Eating back X calories in chocolate won't affect her real weight any differently than eating back X calories in asparagus and peaches.lrachel011 wrote: »Well you have to definitely make sure that you're burning off as much as you think you are, otherwise you'll be eating more than your allowance and not lose any weight. If you are going to eat it all back again, don't eat chocolate and sweets, eat healthy fruit an veggies
0 -
Most eat just a portion, to accommodate miscalculations in burns and logging.0
-
The app is designed for you to eat them back, so try that for a week or two. Some people eat them all back and still lose.
But some don't lose and then eat half them and begin losing.
There seems to be a lot of pride involved with not eating them for some, but do try to eat as much as you can while still losing. You may hit a point where you want to cut back to break a plateau or something and you're going to want something to cut!
Eat as much as you can while still losing!
The type of food you eat matters for your health, not your weight loss. Fruits and veggies give you vitamins and minerals that you need, and fiber that you can use, but 100 calories of chocolate will help you lose the same amount of weight that 100 calories of fruits and veggies will. It won't fill you up or nourish you in the same way, but you can lose weight eating either one.0 -
1400 seems really high but not impossible--for me that would be about 15-16 miles.
I think calorie calculators for running can be quite accurate, so long as you include your weight and the time and distance covered. However, you have to be careful, because they usually don't subtract out the calories you would have been burning in that time period anyway, so the longer the run, the more overstated it may be.
Back when I used to eat back calories I'd eat back most of the calories from a run of an run or less, and then less (maybe 50-75%, although the lower was more because I'd never want all the extra calories) for longer runs or the amounts over 1 hour.
Gym stuff is much less accurate and is quite hard to figure out. I'd eat back 50% or just figure out a sensible amount to eat back (I would do maybe 150 for an hour of mostly strength stuff, more for an hour of mixed cardio and strength or a class--maybe 300 or so for the class). On the whole everything would average out okay over the course of the week, but the best thing to do is just pick a method and then evaluate based on your losses over a few weeks. If less than expected, eat back less; if more than expected, eat back more.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »1400 seems really high but not impossible--for me that would be about 15-16 miles.
I think calorie calculators for running can be quite accurate, so long as you include your weight and the time and distance covered. However, you have to be careful, because they usually don't subtract out the calories you would have been burning in that time period anyway, so the longer the run, the more overstated it may be.
Back when I used to eat back calories I'd eat back most of the calories from a run of an run or less, and then less (maybe 50-75%, although the lower was more because I'd never want all the extra calories) for longer runs or the amounts over 1 hour.
Gym stuff is much less accurate and is quite hard to figure out. I'd eat back 50% or just figure out a sensible amount to eat back (I would do maybe 150 for an hour of mostly strength stuff, more for an hour of mixed cardio and strength or a class--maybe 300 or so for the class). On the whole everything would average out okay over the course of the week, but the best thing to do is just pick a method and then evaluate based on your losses over a few weeks. If less than expected, eat back less; if more than expected, eat back more.
My long runs are between 10 and 12 miles and as I am a slow runner they take over 2 hours to complete, prior to using the ap I always based my calories on 100 cals per 10 minutes. I'll try cutting back and leaving a few extra's and see how it goes.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »1400 seems really high but not impossible--for me that would be about 15-16 miles.
I think calorie calculators for running can be quite accurate, so long as you include your weight and the time and distance covered. However, you have to be careful, because they usually don't subtract out the calories you would have been burning in that time period anyway, so the longer the run, the more overstated it may be.
Back when I used to eat back calories I'd eat back most of the calories from a run of an run or less, and then less (maybe 50-75%, although the lower was more because I'd never want all the extra calories) for longer runs or the amounts over 1 hour.
Gym stuff is much less accurate and is quite hard to figure out. I'd eat back 50% or just figure out a sensible amount to eat back (I would do maybe 150 for an hour of mostly strength stuff, more for an hour of mixed cardio and strength or a class--maybe 300 or so for the class). On the whole everything would average out okay over the course of the week, but the best thing to do is just pick a method and then evaluate based on your losses over a few weeks. If less than expected, eat back less; if more than expected, eat back more.
My long runs are between 10 and 12 miles and as I am a slow runner they take over 2 hours to complete, prior to using the ap I always based my calories on 100 cals per 10 minutes. I'll try cutting back and leaving a few extra's and see how it goes.
How tall are you OP? I highly doubt you (or me, or most people) are burning 1400 extra exercise calories a day on top of their BMR.0 -
it is the way this particular program is designed to work...but it's really hard to accurately estimate calorie burns so you need to make an allowance for error...whether that's taking some % off or just establishing a reasonable number to eat back is up to you.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »1400 seems really high but not impossible--for me that would be about 15-16 miles.
I think calorie calculators for running can be quite accurate, so long as you include your weight and the time and distance covered. However, you have to be careful, because they usually don't subtract out the calories you would have been burning in that time period anyway, so the longer the run, the more overstated it may be.
Back when I used to eat back calories I'd eat back most of the calories from a run of an run or less, and then less (maybe 50-75%, although the lower was more because I'd never want all the extra calories) for longer runs or the amounts over 1 hour.
Gym stuff is much less accurate and is quite hard to figure out. I'd eat back 50% or just figure out a sensible amount to eat back (I would do maybe 150 for an hour of mostly strength stuff, more for an hour of mixed cardio and strength or a class--maybe 300 or so for the class). On the whole everything would average out okay over the course of the week, but the best thing to do is just pick a method and then evaluate based on your losses over a few weeks. If less than expected, eat back less; if more than expected, eat back more.
My long runs are between 10 and 12 miles and as I am a slow runner they take over 2 hours to complete, prior to using the ap I always based my calories on 100 cals per 10 minutes. I'll try cutting back and leaving a few extra's and see how it goes.
My "a run of a run or less" was supposed to be "a run of an hour or less." Oops!
I think the general rule is 100 calories/mile if you are 150, more if more, less if less.0 -
I underestimate my runs (I average a 9 minute mile but put it in my diary as a 12 minute mile) then I only eat back half of those calories. That's what works for me.-1
-
When I used a Fitbit to measure my calories out and MFP logging of calories in, weigh in grams with a digital scale, verified with nutrition labels or USDA, the (CI-CO=weight change) formula was 90% accurate for me over a months time. My actual loss is higher than the formula projected loss. The more accurate I have been in measuring, the more closely I need or get to eat to my net goal.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »1400 seems really high but not impossible--for me that would be about 15-16 miles.
I think calorie calculators for running can be quite accurate, so long as you include your weight and the time and distance covered. However, you have to be careful, because they usually don't subtract out the calories you would have been burning in that time period anyway, so the longer the run, the more overstated it may be.
Back when I used to eat back calories I'd eat back most of the calories from a run of an run or less, and then less (maybe 50-75%, although the lower was more because I'd never want all the extra calories) for longer runs or the amounts over 1 hour.
Gym stuff is much less accurate and is quite hard to figure out. I'd eat back 50% or just figure out a sensible amount to eat back (I would do maybe 150 for an hour of mostly strength stuff, more for an hour of mixed cardio and strength or a class--maybe 300 or so for the class). On the whole everything would average out okay over the course of the week, but the best thing to do is just pick a method and then evaluate based on your losses over a few weeks. If less than expected, eat back less; if more than expected, eat back more.
My long runs are between 10 and 12 miles and as I am a slow runner they take over 2 hours to complete, prior to using the ap I always based my calories on 100 cals per 10 minutes. I'll try cutting back and leaving a few extra's and see how it goes.
How tall are you OP? I highly doubt you (or me, or most people) are burning 1400 extra exercise calories a day on top of their BMR.
I am short and fat lol! 35lbs overweight according to the BMI charts. I have entered my height and weight on a number of aps and they all give me approx the same calorie burn for a 130 minute 5MPH run, but that wasn't my question. I have decided to just eat back 75% of the calories expended. Up to now I have had a steady 1lb a week weight loss eating everything I use. I run approx 20-25 miles a week and do 3 hours gym cardio a week so I don't want to loose my energy.0 -
This entire thing is perplexing to me. I don't eat back my calories, and I haven't felt fatigued during a workout or extremely hungry afterwards or throughout the day. I am losing, but I don't want to kill my metabolism. When I have eaten more of my calories back, the "you will weigh x in 5 weeks if you eat like this" goes up by like 5 pounds. It just leaves me scratching my head. lol0
-
What are your goals? Are you trying to build muscle, gain endurance? I concentrate on eating back protein to maintain existing muscle and defend against loss, and carbs to a lesser degree for energy and muscle building.
If you are seeing success and losing 1lb/week (outstanding!) eating back, then continue this plan. You may have to scale this back a bit as you get closer to your goal weight, but if you stop losing review your past activity on eating back and go by what the data is telling you.
Congrats on your success!0 -
I don't eat mine back and stick to my daily calories as I want to lose 1-3 lbs a week. I feel satisfied and eat filling food (salad and vegetables) so I feel if I burn through extra activity, it is strengthening my ability to move towards my goal. If I was losing more than 2 lb I would eat more. I need to see where u can best reach ur goals and do it healthily0
-
-
I recommend counting only 1/3 of your exercise calories as measured by MFP. And, I perceive we lose weight by adjusting what we eat and how much, not really by exercise.0
-
jjburger77 wrote: »When I have eaten more of my calories back, the "you will weigh x in 5 weeks if you eat like this" goes up by like 5 pounds. It just leaves me scratching my head. lol
Why is this perplexing? The "you will weigh" thing is nothing but basic math. If your maintenance is 2000 and you eat 1500 and exercise 250, you will lose on average (if you do that every day!) 1.5 lb/week or 7.5 lb in 5 weeks.
If you exercise 250 and eat 1750 (from eating calories back), you will lose on average 1 lb/week or 5 lb in 5 weeks.
The concern with not eating back calories is that lots of people eat 1200 (which is supposed to be a 2 lb deficit for them) and then exercise a bunch on top of that, which is a more extreme deficit than is recommended and typically either not sustainable or likely to result in more loss of muscle mass than necessary (personally, losing an additional 5-10 lbs if half is muscle is not be worth it to me).
Of course, it's really common to understate actual calories when you log, so many people don't eat back exercise and use the calories (especially if they aren't doing especially intense things) to cover logging errors. You can see whether your real deficit is too extreme or not based on actual losses.
OP's doing some pretty intense exercise, like long runs, so IMO she's much better off eating some back, as she's planning.0 -
stefankruithof wrote: »
I am a short, very overweight 50 year old, my height, age and weight have been entered onto to my profile and I assume they are used to estimate calories burned. I don't run very fast, I run at 5 miles an hour. Yesterday I ran for 63 minutes and it said I had burned 655 calories, a 12 mile run takes me just over 2 hours 20 minutes and it estimates 1456 calories. You all seem very hung up on how many calories I am burning and I kind of feel like people think I am lying! - I am very overweight for my height, if I was a slim young thing I assume I would burn less calories, if this ap doesn't make a reasonable estimate on calories burned there's not much point in using it really. All I wanted was peoples ideas on if you should eat what you burn.0 -
You all seem very hung up on how many calories I am burning and I kind of feel like people think I am lying! - I am very overweight for my height, if I was a slim young thing I assume I would burn less calories, if this ap doesn't make a reasonable estimate on calories burned there's not much point in using it really. All I wanted was peoples ideas on if you should eat what you burn.
I don't think people are saying you're lying. That's just a very high number and they're questioning the accuracy. It's just very common around here for people to overestimate their calorie burns and then get frustrated when they eat all the calories back and then don't lose any weight. People are just suggesting maybe not to be so trusting of the numbers is all.
0 -
You all seem very hung up on how many calories I am burning and I kind of feel like people think I am lying!
Not at all. People just know that there IS a problem with the app overestimating calories burned, so don't want to tell you to eat back calories without addressing that issue.
As I said, I think the estimates for running are pretty good (I use the one in Runkeeper, but it's pretty similar, as are the ones online at Running World or similar sites). I'd still cut them a little to be safe, especially for longer runs.
It's not uncommon to get people who think they are burning over 1000 calories/day in just an hour of exercise, given the insane estimates that people can get for things like the elliptical or some classes or due to using the heart rate monitor in ways it's not suited or if they mistakenly use regular biking entries for stationary biking, etc., so that can mess up their logging. Since you said upfront you were talking about a long run day I didn't think it was so unlikely, although it may be a little high (which is why I gave what the miles would be for me, but yeah weight makes a difference).
Anyway, it sounds to me like you have a good plan going forward. If you don't like the results after a few weeks, just adjust.0 -
Thanks folks - i intend to move forward eating 75% of what I burn. Planning a 2 hour 30 min run tomorrow so that still gives me room for a treat!0
-
I've been using the "Workout" app on my Apple Watch to calculate calories burned--you tell it what kind of workout you're doing and what your goal is (time, mileage, no goal) and then once you start it, it takes your heart rate continuously during the entire workout. I think the fancier Fitbits have the same functionality as well as some of the other fitness bands.
When my elliptical machine says I burned 500 calories, the watch usually only says about 300 to 350. Same for biking--the calorie calculators that I have tried say that my rides should be burning about 500 calories based on my weight, pace, and time biking, but the watch only says about 320.
This is why I'm a big fan of using any device that takes heart rate. I know it's probably not 100% accurate either, but at least it doesn't blow smoke up your *kitten* like some of these gym machines do.0 -
I would agree, eating back about 75% (normally I'd say eat it all back, but that's only if you're wearing a heart rate monitor to track calories burned and weighing everything you eat so you know the exact calorie count). That extra 25% that you don't eat back can make up for anything you didn't count during the day. But yes, the app/profile is designed to factor in eating calories back, and if you don't, your calories consumed can get too low and you'll hinder any weight loss efforts. So stick with it and you'll do great!0
-
-
Domicinator wrote: »I've been using the "Workout" app on my Apple Watch to calculate calories burned--you tell it what kind of workout you're doing and what your goal is (time, mileage, no goal) and then once you start it, it takes your heart rate continuously during the entire workout. I think the fancier Fitbits have the same functionality as well as some of the other fitness bands.
When my elliptical machine says I burned 500 calories, the watch usually only says about 300 to 350. Same for biking--the calorie calculators that I have tried say that my rides should be burning about 500 calories based on my weight, pace, and time biking, but the watch only says about 320.
This is why I'm a big fan of using any device that takes heart rate. I know it's probably not 100% accurate either, but at least it doesn't blow smoke up your *kitten* like some of these gym machines do.
I am considering in investing in a fitbit or something similar - do you know if they map your route?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »1400 seems really high but not impossible--for me that would be about 15-16 miles.
I think calorie calculators for running can be quite accurate, so long as you include your weight and the time and distance covered. However, you have to be careful, because they usually don't subtract out the calories you would have been burning in that time period anyway, so the longer the run, the more overstated it may be.
Back when I used to eat back calories I'd eat back most of the calories from a run of an run or less, and then less (maybe 50-75%, although the lower was more because I'd never want all the extra calories) for longer runs or the amounts over 1 hour.
Gym stuff is much less accurate and is quite hard to figure out. I'd eat back 50% or just figure out a sensible amount to eat back (I would do maybe 150 for an hour of mostly strength stuff, more for an hour of mixed cardio and strength or a class--maybe 300 or so for the class). On the whole everything would average out okay over the course of the week, but the best thing to do is just pick a method and then evaluate based on your losses over a few weeks. If less than expected, eat back less; if more than expected, eat back more.
My long runs are between 10 and 12 miles...
To get 1400 calories from 11 miles would require a body weight of....right around 210 pounds. Is that where you're at?You all seem very hung up on how many calories I am burning and I kind of feel like people think I am lying!
First, you're the one who brought up the calorie burn issue. Second, nobody called you a liar or anything even remotely like that. Some of us are just real experienced at getting more accurate burn numbers, and we're trying to help you out.
Since, you know, you specifically asked a question about calorie burns....
0 -
I eat most of mine back and I've been steadily losing weight since using this app, about 6 weeks now.0
-
stefankruithof wrote: »
I am a short, very overweight 50 year old, my height, age and weight have been entered onto to my profile and I assume they are used to estimate calories burned. I don't run very fast, I run at 5 miles an hour. Yesterday I ran for 63 minutes and it said I had burned 655 calories, a 12 mile run takes me just over 2 hours 20 minutes and it estimates 1456 calories. You all seem very hung up on how many calories I am burning and I kind of feel like people think I am lying! - I am very overweight for my height, if I was a slim young thing I assume I would burn less calories, if this ap doesn't make a reasonable estimate on calories burned there's not much point in using it really. All I wanted was peoples ideas on if you should eat what you burn.
actually, this app is much better for using the database for food entries...the exercise burn stuff tends not to be that accurate...there are a lot of variables for calories out...it's impossible for any database or calculator to really be accurate.
you're making the mistake many people do...blindly trusting some calculator or database with something that is pretty complex.
this app is great for the food part...but with calorie burns, you're going to want to look at several different sources and then you still need to realize that it's a big time estimate...it's one of the downsides of this particular method...I much prefer the TDEE method.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions