Eating back calories - Professional opinions

Options
13»

Replies

  • funkyspunky871
    funkyspunky871 Posts: 1,675 Member
    Options
    I know that this topic has been beaten to death, but here is my dilemma: I have a degree in nutrition and the "rules" state that a woman needs 1200 calories of food per day, period. There is no mention of eating back exercise calories. I've searched the web and cannot find any professional articles or sites that talk about this idea one way or the other. Does anyone know of any such article, or has anyone spoken to a professional about this topic?

    Thanks, Delania

    Oh gosh. I'm sorry your topic turned into another NET calorie argument. I know exactly what you're asking though. No, I haven't seen any sources from a professional confirming that eating exercise calories is right. Neither have I seen any saying the idea of 1200 NET calories is wrong. In fact, I had never even heard of eating back exercise calories until I joined MFP. I do have to say that is absolutely makes sense though, despite the lack of... God help me, I can't think of the word right now. (Hopefully you know what I'm trying to say. :sick: ) If it works though, why would you need a professional to authenticate or justify the concept anyways? The proof is all around you on MFP. I don't personally eat back my calories (except for this past week, and let me tell you... I love the extra food, but the scale doesn't), but I know a ton of MFP members who have had the same success as me by implementing the idea of NET calories. :)
  • Goal_Seeker_1988
    Goal_Seeker_1988 Posts: 1,619 Member
    Options
    I hope im not going to get shot down for saying this but wouldnt it be better to take it a day at a time and see how your body reacts to the amount of calories your eating say eat more if you lose too fast or eat less if your not losing any. Is all the mathematics totally necessary. *Runs Away Quickly*

    Completly agree! Seriously, everybodies bodys work differently in the sense of how they burn calories. I am always all over the place with my caloric intake but bottom line is that I eat when I am hungry and eat often and I try and not allow myself to go to bed hungry. Yes, certain foods like carbs and surgary foods will leave you feelin hungry but bottom line is how the body uses them is up to each persons body.

    So play around with the calories, eventually you will figure out what works best for you. If it's better that you only eat half of your calories burned back then do that. I hope I don't get mocked for given my advice.
  • Rodneymc4
    Rodneymc4 Posts: 62
    Options
    OK trying to make sense of this all, I hope you don't mind helping me out. My BMR is 1539.15 so I x that by 1.55 (spinning instructor, I teach usually 5 classes a week, some weight training usually 1 or 2/week) and I come out with 2385.6825. These are the calories I need to maintain my weight, if I want to lose I just cut down from that number??? Am I understanding this right?

    _____________________________

    YES, a 500 calorie deficit a day should take away 1 pound a week so 2385 - 500 = 1885 calories a day is the number for 1lb a week.
  • Rodneymc4
    Rodneymc4 Posts: 62
    Options
    I know that this topic has been beaten to death, but here is my dilemma: I have a degree in nutrition and the "rules" state that a woman needs 1200 calories of food per day, period. There is no mention of eating back exercise calories. I've searched the web and cannot find any professional articles or sites that talk about this idea one way or the other. Does anyone know of any such article, or has anyone spoken to a professional about this topic?

    Thanks, Delania

    Oh gosh. I'm sorry your topic turned into another NET calorie argument. I know exactly what you're asking though. No, I haven't seen any sources from a professional confirming that eating exercise calories is right. Neither have I seen any saying the idea of 1200 NET calories is wrong. In fact, I had never even heard of eating back exercise calories until I joined MFP. I do have to say that is absolutely makes sense though, despite the lack of... God help me, I can't think of the word right now. (Hopefully you know what I'm trying to say. :sick: ) If it works though, why would you need a professional to authenticate or justify the concept anyways? The proof is all around you on MFP. I don't personally eat back my calories (except for this past week, and let me tell you... I love the extra food, but the scale doesn't), but I know a ton of MFP members who have had the same success as me by implementing the idea of NET calories. :)

    I have just started eating back my exercise calories today. I pray my scale appreciates this new found wisdom...to be continued next week when and IF I lose my targeted weight.

    However, I did experience the loss of muscle while retaining the fat by not eating back my exercise calories, which is an absolute no / no for me.
  • pandafoo
    pandafoo Posts: 367 Member
    Options
    I have talked with both my personal trainer who's a metabolism specialist and with my dietician about this, and they both stated the importance of eating back exercise calories. they don't know about the MFP website at all, so they probably learned about it through their training and education. if you'd like, i can ask them this week what their sources of info were.

    i am similar to you in that i do like to know the scientific evidence that backs up a claim. while there may not be articles specifically about eating back exercise calories (i think this concept was developed because of the way mfp was set up), there are definitely lots of articles about the importance of getting enough calories and what appropriate calorie levels would be for men and women, importance of refueling after workouts, etc. even the american council of exercise recommends no more than a 1000 calorie deficit a day. altogether, all that info points to getting enough fuel for the body, and one way to do that is to eat back exercise calories.

    so for me, even if there's not a wealth of scientific literature about this very topic, i'll keep on eating back exercise calories. i've been losing weight at a rate of 1.5 lbs a week, and have regained the muscle that i'd lost - and the loss occurred partly because i hadn't eaten enough calories. i'll let experience and logic serve as my guide. :)
  • significance
    significance Posts: 436 Member
    Options
    Something that a lot of people miss in these arguments is that setting a lower limit of 1200 net calories sets a very low calorie deficit for smaller people. To lose 1 lb per week, we need a deficit of 500 calories. I need 1500 net calories per day to maintain my current weight, so to lose 1 lb per week, I'd need to net 1000 calories per day. To eat only 1000 calories per day would be unhealthy and make it hard to get the nutrients I need, but it seems to me that if I eat 1600 calories and exercise enough to burn off 600 calories per day, I am able to have a healthy diet and at the same time maintain enough of a calorie deficit for that moderate, 1 lb/week weight loss.
  • annpat28
    annpat28 Posts: 42
    Options
    bump
  • susioryan
    susioryan Posts: 180
    Options
    Bump
  • KellyBurton1
    KellyBurton1 Posts: 529 Member
    Options
    :wink: saving for later
  • takemeaway10
    takemeaway10 Posts: 75
    Options
    SUPER BUMP

    Here's my theory and math on eating calories back. We all agree that 1200 is the minimum for adults to function and that one should not create a calorie deficit larger than 1,000 (or, don't try to lose more than 2 lbs a week).

    Summary: You should eat back your calories unless it causes a net calorie consumption lower than 1,200 kcal or a calorie deficit larger than 1,000 kcal.

    I'm on a 1500 calorie diet. This is my BMR plus my lifestyle, minus the automatic deficit that MFP creates. If I burn 200 calories, my net is 1300 calories and my deficit is 700 calories; ALL GOOD. If I burn 400 calories, my deficit (900 kcal) is fine, but my net consumed is lower than 1,200. This can be corrected by eating 100 calories. Then, you'd have a 800 kcal deficit and 1200 net consumed. ALL GOOD.

    Next scenario: An individual who is slightly more active than I is give 1800 calories a day by MFP with the included 500 calorie deficit. If he burns 400, his net is 1400 and his deficit is 900; OK. If he ups his workout to 600, his deficit will be too high. He could either eat the calories back OR not burn as many calories. If his main goal is to lose weight, he shouldn't bother with the extra 100 calories; just relax. If his goal is fitness, he should eat back the calories. He will render his efforts useless because, while he's working to build muscle, the deficit causes the body to grab some energy from the muscle.

    'Nother example: An individual that is given 1200 calories a day(Automatic 500 kcal deficit). Skip the math; this individual should be eating all their exercise calories back to avoid losing muscle mass, ESPECIALLY if they burn more than 500 kcal through exercise.

    Why the "1lb-a-weeker" has more calories to play around: Let's go back to me. If I consume 1500 (MFP sggested, 500 calorie deficit) and burn 200 calories (which means I CAN eat up to 1700 kcal), if I decide not to eat back my excersise calories, my net (1300 kcal) and my deficit (700 kcal) are safe. I my requirement was the same but I'm looking to lose 2lbs a week, then I need to eat back all my exercise calories; otherwise, I'll risk having a deficit too high.

    Why I don't think you'll find any literature suggesting "eating calories back": MFP is the only website of which I know that guesses your daily calorie requirement based on daily activity, THEN allows you to burn extra calories via exercise. Without this, you would simply include your exercise in your daily activity, have your 500-1,000 calorie deficit, and that would be it.

    If we assume the basics mentioned above (nothing larger than a 1,000 calorie deficit and net calorie consumption lower than 1,200), then we should just be fine.
  • Eve1972
    Eve1972 Posts: 297
    Options
    I know that this topic has been beaten to death, but here is my dilemma: I have a degree in nutrition and the "rules" state that a woman needs 1200 calories of food per day, period. There is no mention of eating back exercise calories. I've searched the web and cannot find any professional articles or sites that talk about this idea one way or the other. Does anyone know of any such article, or has anyone spoken to a professional about this topic?

    Thanks, Delania

    Well, I'm not an expert by any means but I have had a love affair with health and fitness for many years now. I have not come across this idea before until posting here.

    From what I know you don't really need to eat back your exercise calories. I think people confuse eating a low calorie diet which is nutritionally deficient and therefore harmful and eating a well balanced diet but then adding cardio to ensure a negative calorie balance which can be very effective.

    The 1,200 calorie guideline is a good one as generally the individual has a margin of error to ensure they are getting sufficient nutrients from their food intake. However, I would like to point that medically supervised VLCD's are nutritionally complete at 800 calories.

    I guess some people presume that you somehow exercise out the nutrients you have consumed but that is generally not correct as they are absorbed by the body save for that which you lose through transpiration (ie sweating.)

    Of course there are many good reasons for eating much more than 1,200 calories if you are approaching normal weight. However, there is no harm in my view of not eating back your calories say if you are on 1,700 calories yet burn 700 calories through exercise leaving a 1000 calorie balance.

    Thank you! That is exactly what I believe also. There is a difference between eating 1500 calories and burning 500, then simply eating 1000 calories.
  • alifer
    alifer Posts: 387 Member
    Options
    Bump
  • KazNoms
    KazNoms Posts: 83
    Options
    Wait what! Major bump! Think a change is order for my organs sake x(
  • melaniecheeks
    melaniecheeks Posts: 6,349 Member
    Options
    I understand the maths. But I don't think bodies behave like that. You don't put on weight overnight becaue you ate more than 2000 cals one day, say, nor do you lose overnight if you've only eaten 800 calories one day (these are just hypothetical examples). MFP is full of people who've eaten right and exercised well for weeks at a time, with no result. It may be straighforward maths, but its not so straightforward biology.

    I liked the quote above that eating 1500 and burning 500 isn't the same as only consuming 1000.
  • pammyedmunds
    pammyedmunds Posts: 608 Member
    Options
    BUMP for later reading!
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    Options
    I know that this topic has been beaten to death, but here is my dilemma: I have a degree in nutrition and the "rules" state that a woman needs 1200 calories of food per day, period. There is no mention of eating back exercise calories. I've searched the web and cannot find any professional articles or sites that talk about this idea one way or the other. Does anyone know of any such article, or has anyone spoken to a professional about this topic?

    Thanks, Delania

    check again, there are no rules for minimum calories. That guideline you are talking about is the average minimum women need in order to maintain long term health, and it is in regards to micro nutrients, not macro nutrients. In other words, it's just something noted by the World Health Organization in the 80's after doing an observational study on thousands of woman world wide. They determined that women who eat less than 1200 calories eventually suffer from vitamin and/or mineral deficiencies.

    The reason why you won't see eating exercise calories back in any nutrition text is because it is a concept made popular by this website rather recently. It's just a different way to do it, it's neither better or worse. This is why when I tell people to eat back exercise calories, and they mention that their nutritionist or trainer doesn't agree, I tell them to explain first that MFP gives you a deficit based on maintenance calories (AMR) and exercise calories are only added back to retain that deficit level.

    It's no different than giving someone a static calorie amount (after doing the individual research) and having exercise expand that deficit, it's just a different way to reach that same deficit goal.

    The problem arises when people don't understand this concept and decide to create a deficit that is right on the edge of the maximum amount they can create (or over in many cases) and then don't eat their exercise calories, which expands the deficit far beyond what their body can handle in a healthy manner.
  • myofibril
    myofibril Posts: 4,500 Member
    Options
    The reason why you won't see eating exercise calories back in any nutrition text is because it is a concept made popular by this website rather recently. It's just a different way to do it, it's neither better or worse. This is why when I tell people to eat back exercise calories, and they mention that their nutritionist or trainer doesn't agree, I tell them to explain first that MFP gives you a deficit based on maintenance calories (AMR) and exercise calories are only added back to retain that deficit level.

    I would echo this. At the time of writing my original post (sometime ago it seems!) I wasn't aware of how MFP projects calorie deficit levels. If I was using the MFP calculator I would eat back exercise calories as they have not been included within the deficit calculation as I now understand.

    It would be interesting to know what activity level multipliers are applied to BMR (I'm assuming that's how it has been set up) though because it isn't something I had ever come across before. However, I note that Livestrong seems to use the same set up as here too.
  • lornawalker
    lornawalker Posts: 135
    Options
    bump
  • meggers123
    meggers123 Posts: 711 Member
    Options
    What I've always heard is that it varies. Someone who has significant weight to lose, can handle not eating back their work-out calories, whereas someone closer to their goal (10-20 lbs) need to be more careful about not dropping below 1100-1200 net.
  • JennLifts
    JennLifts Posts: 1,913 Member
    Options
    To the OP: It's not that you should eat them back. When you learned your information in school, you learned it as though someone is losing weight regularly. You're information is ok. BUT we're not in the real world losing weight where there's no deficit built in on a fancy website. So when you come on here, and it creates on (and not my exercise) you have to eat the cals you worked off, so that you stay at the 1200, or what ever deficit you had. Other wise you've made the deficit much larger.

Categories