Eating back exercise calories- will the exercise burn still count?
Options
Replies
-
dramafree69 wrote: »I never eat back my exercise calories, but I am struggling daily to get my calorie intake up" not a big eater". My RMR is 1,900 calories and I'm lucky if I clear 1,600 daily which is not good when you eat under your resting metabolic rate your body can going to starvation mode and start storing fat...
Good news! That doesn't happen!
2 -
wally2wiki wrote: »I don't think you should eat back calories. If you do then what's the purpose of your workout? Also, you can easily overestimate the amount of calories you need to eat back.
Does anyone have the "exercise calories again wtf" link and post it here? I cant find it!0 -
dramafree69 wrote: »I never eat back my exercise calories, but I am struggling daily to get my calorie intake up" not a big eater". My RMR is 1,900 calories and I'm lucky if I clear 1,600 daily which is not good when you eat under your resting metabolic rate your body can going to starvation mode and start storing fat...
Your RMR is 1900? How'd you calculate that. Just wondering because mine is around 1720 and I'm a 6' tall man. As for "starvation mode" where your body stores fat if you don't eat enough....that is a myth based on a misunderstanding of a real but rather inconsequential phenomenon known as adaptive thermogenesis which really only occurs under prolonged starvation conditions and has a negligible effect and an effect that has nothing to do with storing fat while starving.1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »wally2wiki wrote: »I don't think you should eat back calories. If you do then what's the purpose of your workout? Also, you can easily overestimate the amount of calories you need to eat back.
Does anyone have the "exercise calories again wtf" link and post it here? I cant find it!
I tried to find that a couple weeks ago and couldn't find it, I'm afraid it got sent to green pastures to play with its pals "sodium bicarbonate is toxic" "microwave = death box" and every "halp I'm addicted to sugar" thread.
I swore it was in the "I like old posts and I cannot lie" sticky but I was wrong apparently...0 -
Then they could just eat 2000 calories in the first placeChristine_72 wrote: »Pointless eating back calories if you're trying to lose weight
@FelonE1 What if someone has a calorie allowance of 1500 calories, say a -500 deficit, and they burn 1000 calories through exercise. If they didn't eat those back then they would be netting 500 calories and end up having a deficit of 1500 calories per day.
I predict burn out and a binge amongst other undesirable consequences would be in this persons future if they continued on this path...
0 -
Then they could just eat 2000 calories in the first placeChristine_72 wrote: »Pointless eating back calories if you're trying to lose weight
@FelonE1 What if someone has a calorie allowance of 1500 calories, say a -500 deficit, and they burn 1000 calories through exercise. If they didn't eat those back then they would be netting 500 calories and end up having a deficit of 1500 calories per day.
I predict burn out and a binge amongst other undesirable consequences would be in this persons future if they continued on this path...
Same but different :huh:1 -
Ok a lot of this seems convoluted but... If you have a calorie goal of 1500 and you exercise and burn off 500 calories. You *could* eat 2000 now (1500+500) and lose the original amount of weight planned or you could just leave those 500 calories alone, not eat them back, and lose some extra ounces (it would be as if you ate 1000 instead of 1500 since you worked the other 500 off AND did not eat them back). That's the idea. Obviously you can eat more calories if you burn more off, but also obviously if you eat them all back they will be gone again lol make sense?
Also, in this way, exercise IS for weight loss as well. Cardio (walking, tredmill, stairmaster) is for weight loss and some toning, while strength training (lifting weights, crunches, push ups, pull-ups, squats) is for strengthening muscles and toning your body to make it stronger. Some are kind of a blend of both, such as certain types of dancing.1 -
Then they could just eat 2000 calories in the first placeChristine_72 wrote: »Pointless eating back calories if you're trying to lose weight
@FelonE1 What if someone has a calorie allowance of 1500 calories, say a -500 deficit, and they burn 1000 calories through exercise. If they didn't eat those back then they would be netting 500 calories and end up having a deficit of 1500 calories per day.
I predict burn out and a binge amongst other undesirable consequences would be in this persons future if they continued on this path...
Tomato, tomAto. That's basically the same thing.
Why the "eating back" method is more appropriate for some people than picking a higher calorie allowance representative of activity level and sticking to it (the TDEE method) is that because some people don't have a consistent activity level.
My sedentary maintenance is around 1950 calories. I have my daily allowance set at 1450 calories. Yesterday I did 400 something calories in exercise and ate them back bringing my whole intake to 1900 something calories. If I had my allowance set to 1900 in the first place and then had days where I didn't exercise at all for extended periods or days where I exercised for a 1000 calories I would be eating either too much or too little and my weight loss would be unpredictable. Now if if I had a habit of doing the same activities burning the same calories day in and day out, I would just set my allowance to 1900 calories and forget about exercise calories.
No matter how much I eat, when I net under 1000 for an extended time even if eating 2000 calories I get negative hormonal side effects that push my to eat everything in the house. I'm talking 4000+ calories. Hormonal hunger sucks... I really really hate it. That's why I'm very careful to never net under 1000 for more than 2 days in a row if I happen to be really not hungry. I just make calorie bomb smoothies when not hungry to keep my net calories reasonable. On days I have a normal appetite I eat some of my higher calorie favorites and enjoy every bite while losing consistently without having to deal with hormonal hunger more often than I should.6 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »
Then they could just eat 2000 calories in the first placeChristine_72 wrote: »Pointless eating back calories if you're trying to lose weight
@FelonE1 What if someone has a calorie allowance of 1500 calories, say a -500 deficit, and they burn 1000 calories through exercise. If they didn't eat those back then they would be netting 500 calories and end up having a deficit of 1500 calories per day.
I predict burn out and a binge amongst other undesirable consequences would be in this persons future if they continued on this path...
Tomato, tomAto. That's basically the same thing.
Why the "eating back" method is more appropriate for some people than picking a higher calorie allowance representative of activity level and sticking to it (the TDEE method) is that because some people don't have a consistent activity level.
My sedentary maintenance is around 1950 calories. I have my daily allowance set at 1450 calories. Yesterday I did 400 something calories in exercise and ate them back bringing my whole intake to 1900 something calories. If I had my allowance set to 1900 in the first place and then had days where I didn't exercise at all for extended periods or days where I exercised for a 1000 calories I would be eating either too much or too little and my weight loss would be unpredictable. Now if if I had a habit of doing the same activities burning the same calories day in and day out, I would just set my allowance to 1900 calories and forget about exercise calories.
No matter how much I eat, when I net under 1000 for an extended time even if eating 2000 calories I get negative hormonal side effects that push my to eat everything in the house. I'm talking 4000+ calories. Hormonal hunger sucks... I really really hate it. That's why I'm very careful to never net under 1000 for more than 2 days in a row if I happen to be really not hungry. I just make calorie bomb smoothies when not hungry to keep my net calories reasonable. On days I have a normal appetite I eat some of my higher calorie favorites and enjoy every bite while losing consistently without having to deal with hormonal hunger more often than I should.
Fair enough0 -
@FelonE1Pointless eating back calories if you're trying to lose weight
Here's some points to consider why MFP's eating back exercise calories method is better for me....
I frequently do long cycle rides (sometimes very long, 100+ miles) - they actually do need to be fuelled on the day.
My exercise calories differ enormously from day to day, low of zero to exceptional high of 4500+.
Even a normal week I would see daily variations from zero on a rest day to c.300 on strength training days to 800+ on cardio days to 2000+ on weekend rides.
My exercise also varies enormously from season to season, 600 cycling miles /month in July down to maybe 60 in December. My winter TDEE is far lower (sadly - just when it's "eating season"!).
I also actually dislike the feeling of set daily calorie goals which same every day calorie allowance would give me, makes me feel far more restricted than exactly the same total weekly calories split into 7 equal parts. That's maybe weird but adherence is very personal.
If someone has a regular and/or low exercise volume then the TDEE method is certainly more simple. Both methods should end up at the same place. The success that people get with using the TDEE method (inherently less accurate) demonstrates why complete accuracy isn't really necessary for success.
The method I think is mistaken is to set a calorie goal using MFP but then not account for significant exercise.1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »wally2wiki wrote: »I don't think you should eat back calories. If you do then what's the purpose of your workout? Also, you can easily overestimate the amount of calories you need to eat back.
Does anyone have the "exercise calories again wtf" link and post it here? I cant find it!
Here you go:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/818082/exercise-calories-again-wtf/p11 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »The only thing objective here is that exercise expends caloric energy. The rest is subjective. Why you exercise, how you view exercise, what your goals are etc etc.
I agree.
And what that means is that no one can rightfully say "exercise is for fitness, not calories" as a blanket statement. I mean maybe it is for some people but not for everybody.2 -
wally2wiki wrote: »I don't think you should eat back calories. If you do then what's the purpose of your workout? Also, you can easily overestimate the amount of calories you need to eat back.
(1) It got you out of the house.
(2) The sun was shining.
(3) It improved your cardiovascular fitness.
(4) It was a race.
(5) You just bought a new thing (jacket, bike wheels, running shoes) and needed to see how it performs.
(6) To be social. Perhaps you went hiking with friends or on a group bike ride.
(7) It was on your schedule.
(8) It allowed you to eat more than you otherwise would have been able to, and still lose weight at the rate you signed up for.
(9) You had to get somewhere and didn't want to deal with traffic and parking.
(10) Etc.
Also, you can easily underestimate the number of calories you burned and should eat back.4 -
wally2wiki wrote: »I don't think you should eat back calories. If you do then what's the purpose of your workout? Also, you can easily overestimate the amount of calories you need to eat back.
Sigh. Maybe read the thread. The "what's the purpose of the workout" seems to misconstrue both how MFP sets calories and what (IMO) the purpose of a workout is. (This is why people stress that it's for fitness, even though of course it increases TDEE also.)1 -
wally2wiki wrote: »I don't think you should eat back calories. If you do then what's the purpose of your workout? Also, you can easily overestimate the amount of calories you need to eat back.
1 -
-
@NorthCascadesAlso, you can easily underestimate the number of calories you burned and should eat back.
Good point - MFP folklore seems to be that estimates ALWAYS work against you!
My strength training estimate (from MFP database) is most likely an underestimate.
Strava estimates for cycling are low for me.
Garmin estimates for cycling varies between low and very low for me.
Only a tiny part of my exercise routine I would suggest is anywhere near accurate (power meter equiped trainer).3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »The only thing objective here is that exercise expends caloric energy. The rest is subjective. Why you exercise, how you view exercise, what your goals are etc etc.
I agree.
And what that means is that no one can rightfully say "exercise is for fitness, not calories" as a blanket statement. I mean maybe it is for some people but not for everybody.
Well they can say it, it just amounts to their opinion. If someone claims it to be objective truth then yeah they are wrong...but I think people are leaping to the conclusion that if someone states their opinion they are somehow claiming it as an objective fact. I don't think I really did that personally, I just said how I viewed it. Thats okay, just because something is subjective doesn't mean it isn't worth saying or sharing as a point of view.
Once again NorthCascades I think this is the sort of thing that if we were sitting over a beer on we would probably agree on every point. Just a slightly different approach or viewpoint is all and some of that is lost in translation from it being a post in text on a webpage rather than a conversation.2 -
I'll pile on another opinion …. If you eat all of them back.. you are still at a deficit if you stick to what MFP suggested as your calorie goal However, you'd lose even faster if you didn't eat them back. But, you could use some of them to incase your daily calories by a few hundred so you enjoy your life more.
With me, I use 100 to 200 calories from exercise to eat before and after my gym visit to fuel my workouts. But I wold never.. unless at maintenance… eat them all back ..why?0 -
elisa123gal wrote: »I'll pile on another opinion …. If you eat all of them back.. you are still at a deficit if you stick to what MFP suggested as your calorie goal However, you'd lose even faster if you didn't eat them back. But, you could use some of them to incase your daily calories by a few hundred so you enjoy your life more.
With me, I use 100 to 200 calories from exercise to eat before and after my gym visit to fuel my workouts. But I wold never.. unless at maintenance… eat them all back ..why?
For many of us, we choose the deficit we wish to be at and we don't (for reasons of hunger, energy, fitness goals, or muscle retention) want to make the deficit bigger. That's why I eat all mine back when I'm in a deficit. Losing "faster" isn't necessarily my goal.6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions