Question about eating back exercise calories
MaiaDendinger
Posts: 5 Member
Hi everyone- so this is my first time posting on mfp. I have been using mfp for about a month (I first downloaded the app a year ago but never really used it until now). It seems like a lot of people are saying really emphatically that you should not eat back your exercise calories you earn and I'm just curious about the justification for this. If people are working out really intensely and already on a low calorie limit, that seems sort of unhealthy. For instance, I only weigh about 125 (I'm 5'3") and I only want to lose 5 more pounds (I know I don't need to, it's just vanity weight) but because I am so small, I can only eat around 1200 calories a day if I want to lose close to a pound a week. If I burn 400 more calories through exercise, it seems like I really need those calories- partly because I want to be gaining some lean muscle, and partly because I don't want to slow my metabolism down by undereating too much. It seems like everyone recognizes that you shouldn't starve yourself by eating, say, only 700 calories a day, but people don't seem to realize you can still starve yourself by eating more than that but burning tons of calories on top of a deficit that you don't eat back. And I know some of the rationale is that people think mfp overestimates caloric burn... but I've been using mfp to log my steps and my elliptical workouts and eating back all those calories so that it's only a 500 or so calorie deficit, and I have definitely still been losing a pound a week, as planned (sometimes more from accidental undereating). So it seems accurate enough to be working for me.
I'm just curious about people's thoughts. And full disclosure- I'm especially concerned because I struggled with an eating disorder a few years ago; I started trying to lose weight at 148 pounds, got sort of obsessive about it, and ended up at 105 and starving myself. And I just know that being told back then that even though I was already reducing my calories, if I burned extra calories I still shouldnt eat them, would have been harmful to me. Whether you maintain a deficit by not eating, or by burning more, it's still a deficit, and it's not good to have too large a deficit, especially if you are already a small person.
So I'm trying to lose just a few pounds this time and do it healthily without going overboard again and seeing advice that encourages me to undereat even more was sort of confusing for me. So again, I'd just like to hear people's thoughts...
Edit: I want to add that I realize that for people who have more weight to lose and want to lose it faster, not eating back exercise calories can be a healthy way to speed up your weight loss- but it seems like advice that shouldn't be given without qualification- that maybe people with low body weights, low amounts of weight to lose, or really restrictive calorie limits (or all three) really should eat those exercise calories.
I'm just curious about people's thoughts. And full disclosure- I'm especially concerned because I struggled with an eating disorder a few years ago; I started trying to lose weight at 148 pounds, got sort of obsessive about it, and ended up at 105 and starving myself. And I just know that being told back then that even though I was already reducing my calories, if I burned extra calories I still shouldnt eat them, would have been harmful to me. Whether you maintain a deficit by not eating, or by burning more, it's still a deficit, and it's not good to have too large a deficit, especially if you are already a small person.
So I'm trying to lose just a few pounds this time and do it healthily without going overboard again and seeing advice that encourages me to undereat even more was sort of confusing for me. So again, I'd just like to hear people's thoughts...
Edit: I want to add that I realize that for people who have more weight to lose and want to lose it faster, not eating back exercise calories can be a healthy way to speed up your weight loss- but it seems like advice that shouldn't be given without qualification- that maybe people with low body weights, low amounts of weight to lose, or really restrictive calorie limits (or all three) really should eat those exercise calories.
0
Replies
-
Most folks suggest eating about 1/2 to 2/3 of the calories back (and I agree). This is because the calorie burn estimates are generally high. You should experiment with this to see how accurate it is for you (if you lose too quickly, eat more - if you lose too slowly, eat less).3
-
See, I've been eating all the calories back and still losing at the planned rate...so it doesn't seem like mfp is overestimating my caloric burn. Am i an anomaly?0
-
MaiaDendinger wrote: »See, I've been eating all the calories back and still losing at the planned rate...so it doesn't seem like mfp is overestimating my caloric burn. Am i an anomaly?
No. You just got it right the first time.
Good luck.2 -
If you already know through trial and error that your calorie goal and exercise burn estimates work for you, then go ahead. Most say eat only partial calories back because they haven't figured out their true burn yet and don't want to sabotage their weight loss efforts. They probably also have more to lose and can "afford"a larger deficit. As we approach our goal weight, we can no longer support those large deficits without jeopardizing our health. Your body will start to break down muscle, and your heart is a muscle.
You probably also will not build any lean muscle while in a deficit. At best, you can try to preserve what you have by strength training, keeping a very small deficit, and eating enough protein.1 -
Most folks suggest eating about 1/2 to 2/3 of the calories back (and I agree). This is because the calorie burn estimates are generally high. You should experiment with this to see how accurate it is for you (if you lose too quickly, eat more - if you lose too slowly, eat less).
I think the recommendation to only eat 1/2 or 2/3 does make sense, and I guess most people do say that. But there are some people who seem to be saying you shouldn't eat ANY of them back, which seems like it could be really bad advice for some people, depending on how much you burn (some people exercise a ton)
0 -
MaiaDendinger wrote: »Most folks suggest eating about 1/2 to 2/3 of the calories back (and I agree). This is because the calorie burn estimates are generally high. You should experiment with this to see how accurate it is for you (if you lose too quickly, eat more - if you lose too slowly, eat less).
I think the recommendation to only eat 1/2 or 2/3 does make sense, and I guess most people do say that. But there are some people who seem to be saying you shouldn't eat ANY of them back, which seems like it could be really bad advice for some people, depending on how much you burn (some people exercise a ton)
That is bad advice. Some people are very aggressive with their weight loss however, and there's not much you can do to change their minds.0 -
Yes, I agree. It is very bad advice to not eat at least some of the calories back. At some point you will pay with your health.0
-
Hey,
You and I are pretty much the same height and weight. If you wanted to take a look at my diary you could go ahead and add me as a friend.
My maintenance cals are about 1570 (I think, I can't recall the exact amount right now), and to lose .5 lbs a week (which is pretty much what someone our size should aim for or else the amount of calories we can consume in a day is pretty low), I have to eat about 1350.
If you do add me, just know that I don't weigh my food so when MFP is showing that I've eaten about 1300, I have definitely eaten a bit more than that. Because of this, I tend to not eat my exercise calories back (also because when I exercise I only burn about 200 calories at a time).
Megan, I can't figure out how to add you as a friend haha but if you add me I know how to accept a request0 -
MaiaDendinger wrote: »See, I've been eating all the calories back and still losing at the planned rate...so it doesn't seem like mfp is overestimating my caloric burn. Am i an anomaly?
Are you mostly walking for exercise?
I think MFP is probably pretty close to the truth for walking. It's always about 2x reality for cycling for me. I think it depends on the type of exercise ... which means just cutting whatever number it says in half regardless probably isn't the best idea.0 -
MaiaDendinger wrote: »See, I've been eating all the calories back and still losing at the planned rate...so it doesn't seem like mfp is overestimating my caloric burn. Am i an anomaly?
Not at all. The burn estimates worked pretty well for me, back when I was tracking everything. If it's working the way it's supposed to, then you're in really good shape. I'd suggest you keep doing what you're doing. If something changes, then perhaps (depending on any number of factors) you might want/need to adjust. But, until then, keep on keeping on.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »MaiaDendinger wrote: »See, I've been eating all the calories back and still losing at the planned rate...so it doesn't seem like mfp is overestimating my caloric burn. Am i an anomaly?
Are you mostly walking for exercise?
I think MFP is probably pretty close to the truth for walking. It's always about 2x reality for cycling for me. I think it depends on the type of exercise ... which means just cutting whatever number it says in half regardless probably isn't the best idea.
Yes, most days I just earn calories from my steps, but two or three days a week I'll use the elliptical or the stair stepper and it says I burn about 240 calories for about a half hour (which seems right to me, I'm going at a moderate intensity, slightly out of breath the whole time)0 -
MaiaDendinger wrote: »Most folks suggest eating about 1/2 to 2/3 of the calories back (and I agree). This is because the calorie burn estimates are generally high. You should experiment with this to see how accurate it is for you (if you lose too quickly, eat more - if you lose too slowly, eat less).
I think the recommendation to only eat 1/2 or 2/3 does make sense, and I guess most people do say that. But there are some people who seem to be saying you shouldn't eat ANY of them back, which seems like it could be really bad advice for some people, depending on how much you burn (some people exercise a ton)
That's because some people don't fully understand context. Context is (usually) critical in most calculations.1 -
MaiaDendinger wrote: »For instance, I only weigh about 125 (I'm 5'3") and I only want to lose 5 more pounds (I know I don't need to, it's just vanity weight)
i was exactly here a few years ago. and i got the same 1200-a-day basic level from mfp.If I burn 400 more calories through exercise, it seems like I really need those calories
i would completely agree. i was burning a fair bit by doing a lot of cycling at the time, and also just starting out with 'heavy' lifting (for me). i didn't log the lifting because who even knows how, but i definitely ate back the exercise stuff. it wasn't just about the calories. i wanted the extra iron, potassium, calcium, protein, etc etc so forth.
it all sounds right to me. and for what it's worth, it worked really well for me while i was doing it. all that happened was that i got sick of logging and more interested in lifting weight than losing it, so after a couple of months i eased up on the restrictions and started eating to lift.1 -
MaiaDendinger wrote: »See, I've been eating all the calories back and still losing at the planned rate...so it doesn't seem like mfp is overestimating my caloric burn. Am i an anomaly?
No, you're likely just being more accurate in everything than many people are. I didn't really have any problems with most of MFP's estimates...I think a lot of people have issues because they aren't really able to accurately judge level of effort so they select "vigorous" or something...when in reality it isn't vigorous, they're just out of shape.
IDK...I think some things are more off than others...but I found walking and running and whatnot to be pretty ok.1 -
MaiaDendinger wrote: »See, I've been eating all the calories back and still losing at the planned rate...so it doesn't seem like mfp is overestimating my caloric burn. Am i an anomaly?
No not an anomaly at all. Same for me.
The need for exercise calorie logging accuracy is over-stated massively on here - consistency is fine as long as your estimates aren't ludicrous.
Food logging inaccuracy plays a much greater role in people not creating the expected deficit but there's frequently a weird Puritan outlook about exercise calories which make no sense to me, almost as though they aren't a valid calorie need for your body.1 -
MaiaDendinger wrote: »Most folks suggest eating about 1/2 to 2/3 of the calories back (and I agree). This is because the calorie burn estimates are generally high. You should experiment with this to see how accurate it is for you (if you lose too quickly, eat more - if you lose too slowly, eat less).
I think the recommendation to only eat 1/2 or 2/3 does make sense, and I guess most people do say that. But there are some people who seem to be saying you shouldn't eat ANY of them back, which seems like it could be really bad advice for some people, depending on how much you burn (some people exercise a ton)
No taking a set percentage off an estimate doesn't actually make sense - that's a mathematical abomination!
You don't make estimates more accurate that way, you just make them lower.
Taking one MET off the estimate makes some sense but it's a pretty trivial amount over the course of a week unless you are doing hours and hours of exercise.0 -
Personally, I don't recommend eating back calories for a few reasons. The most important reason is it's difficult to estimate how many calories you are actually burning when you work out. Also, it depends on how much of a caloric deficit you want, as far as your diet. In other words, if your caloric target is only 5-10% below maintenance, you can work out pretty hard to up your deficit to 20% or more through activity. But if you are eating 20% or more through diet alone, you may want to consider just working out with less volume--I find that eating in a big deficit then adding activity to that causes me to want to over eat. Bottom line, for me I do a better job staying consistent if I eat within a narrow caloric range (few if any adjustments) and just exercise within a consistent range, and adjust from there.0
-
MaiaDendinger wrote: »Hi everyone- so this is my first time posting on mfp. I have been using mfp for about a month (I first downloaded the app a year ago but never really used it until now). It seems like a lot of people are saying really emphatically that you should not eat back your exercise calories you earn and I'm just curious about the justification for this. If people are working out really intensely and already on a low calorie limit, that seems sort of unhealthy. For instance, I only weigh about 125 (I'm 5'3") and I only want to lose 5 more pounds (I know I don't need to, it's just vanity weight) but because I am so small, I can only eat around 1200 calories a day if I want to lose close to a pound a week. If I burn 400 more calories through exercise, it seems like I really need those calories- partly because I want to be gaining some lean muscle, and partly because I don't want to slow my metabolism down by undereating too much. It seems like everyone recognizes that you shouldn't starve yourself by eating, say, only 700 calories a day, but people don't seem to realize you can still starve yourself by eating more than that but burning tons of calories on top of a deficit that you don't eat back. And I know some of the rationale is that people think mfp overestimates caloric burn... but I've been using mfp to log my steps and my elliptical workouts and eating back all those calories so that it's only a 500 or so calorie deficit, and I have definitely still been losing a pound a week, as planned (sometimes more from accidental undereating). So it seems accurate enough to be working for me.
I'm just curious about people's thoughts. And full disclosure- I'm especially concerned because I struggled with an eating disorder a few years ago; I started trying to lose weight at 148 pounds, got sort of obsessive about it, and ended up at 105 and starving myself. And I just know that being told back then that even though I was already reducing my calories, if I burned extra calories I still shouldnt eat them, would have been harmful to me. Whether you maintain a deficit by not eating, or by burning more, it's still a deficit, and it's not good to have too large a deficit, especially if you are already a small person.
So I'm trying to lose just a few pounds this time and do it healthily without going overboard again and seeing advice that encourages me to undereat even more was sort of confusing for me. So again, I'd just like to hear people's thoughts...
Edit: I want to add that I realize that for people who have more weight to lose and want to lose it faster, not eating back exercise calories can be a healthy way to speed up your weight loss- but it seems like advice that shouldn't be given without qualification- that maybe people with low body weights, low amounts of weight to lose, or really restrictive calorie limits (or all three) really should eat those exercise calories.
with only 5lbs to lose you need to have your settings to lose .5(1/2) a lb a week, 1lb a week is too aggressive.0 -
MaiaDendinger wrote: »See, I've been eating all the calories back and still losing at the planned rate...so it doesn't seem like mfp is overestimating my caloric burn. Am i an anomaly?
No not an anomaly at all. Same for me.
The need for exercise calorie logging accuracy is over-stated massively on here - consistency is fine as long as your estimates aren't ludicrous.
Food logging inaccuracy plays a much greater role in people not creating the expected deficit but there's frequently a weird Puritan outlook about exercise calories which make no sense to me, almost as though they aren't a valid calorie need for your body.
Puritans only denied the efficacy of eating back exercise calories on the Sabbath.1 -
Personally, I don't recommend eating back calories for a few reasons. The most important reason is it's difficult to estimate how many calories you are actually burning when you work out.
I know how many I'm not burning when I work out: zero.
I went for a short bike ride to drop some mail off. I don't know if I burned 97 calories, or 102. I'm ok with being 5 % off. But if I assume I burned zero, then I'm 100 % off! You're recommending people get it completely wrong because accuracy?Also, it depends on how much of a caloric deficit you want, as far as your diet.
Well, that's exactly right. If you want a 250 cal/day deficit, and then you go ignoring the exercise you do, your deficit is too high.you may want to consider just working out with less volume
But I really love riding a bike! Garmin and Strava both say I was the first person to ride a bike up Cascade River Road! Turns out a few other people have done it, but it was exciting at the time. And a great day. 2 -
I'm not saying to ignore your exercise, just factor it into your overall activity level. Weight loss is cumulative. You average it out over time--I find that it's good to track it more or less weekly. In a given week it's OK to have break even one day, 800 deficit one day, 200 next day, etc., as long as the average is sustainable and giving you a deficit over time. There is no such thing as "too high" a deficit in a single day, and to me "eating back" calories is not constructive--what if you're not hungry? In that case, just don't eat. Even if, including exercise, you're in a 1000 deficit for the day. Just eat a little more tomorrow. And on that note, fasting is good for you in moderation. If you have a total caloric deficit of 4000 in a week, you've lost just over a pound, and for the most part it doesn't matter whether the deficit was spread perfectly evenly throughout the week. Keeping a fairly consistent caloric goal and weighing yourself regularly is going to be more useful than adjusting your caloric goals on a daily basis based on the exercise for that specific day. Just my opinion--consistency is what got it done for me, not caloric micromanagement.0
-
You're saying that it's too hard to know how many calories you burned in a day, so you should estimate a whole week instead? I don't see the logic.
We're into the rainy season now. Every now and then we get a dry and sunny day, or a few of them in a row, and I'll spend a couple hours per day on the bike after work. I have this pent up need to ride. On the other hand, it can drizzle for three weeks at a time (this is Seattle) and I won't ride much, but will walk a lot more because I get cabin fever. Now, riding for two or three hours in a hilly place burns more calories than walking for 45 minutes. What I'm saying is that my energy use (like most peoples') is not very consistent from one week to the next.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions