What is the purpose of eating back your exercise calories

24

Replies

  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 25,599 Member
    When I was actively (and successfully) losing weight, I used this rough guide ...

    If I were doing just a little bit of exercise, like an hour's walk ... I would eat about 50% of my exercise calories back.

    If I were going a moderate amount of exercise, like a 3 or 4 hours on the bicycle ... I would eat about 75% of my exercise calories back.

    If I were going for a lot of exercise, like cycling 6+ hours on the bicycle ... I would eat closer to about 95% of my exercise calories back.

    All approximate, of course, but that was the general plan I followed. I found, through experience, that I needed more calories when I exerted myself more ... and when I did something like an hour's walk, I really didn't need all my exercise calories.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Ericnutrition wrote: »
    soon2beeskinny wrote: »
    I'm not understanding the purpose of eating back your exercise calories. It defeats the purpose of exercising if you are using it to burn more calories. If you eat them back you don't burn more calories. Your're in the same place you were before you started. Am I missing something here?

    I don't get it either. You ate dinner, and you did not exceed your goal of let's say 1,400 calories.

    Later you go to the gym, work really hard, and burn 500 calories, so you are net 500 calories. You get home at 9:30 PM, and now you have to chow down on 500 calories, even if you are not particularly hungry?

    Very strange indeed. Believe me, nothing bad is going to happen to you if you don't eat anymore.

    One day, sure. But regularly netting 900 calories is going to make most people feel pretty terrible.

    You don't have to eat the 500 calories right after dinner. If you know you're going to work out, you could spread them out throughout the day or you could just eat them the next day. There are a lot of options.

    Precisely. Our bodies have adapted remarkably well to offset rough days. This diminishes over time quickly however. Exercise burns resources - these need to be replenished.

    The human body is just a complex chemical lab and reacts well to small changes. Drastic changes do not generally end well and are typically unsustainable.
  • ryenday
    ryenday Posts: 1,540 Member
    edited September 2017
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    ryenday wrote: »
    I’m another one with a very unpopular MFP opinion. I think it really depends on the circumstances of the individual.

    Example 1. Sedentary Male, reasonably tall 25 years old, let’s say MFP gives him 2250 calories to maintain and 1250 calories to lose 2 pounds a week.

    Example 2. Sedentary Female, short and over 50. Let’s say MFP gives her 1500 calories to maintain, but since MFP does not recommend eating below 1200 calories (because that is the minimum level necessary to get necessary nutrients is my understanding why) she gets 1250 to lose .5 pounds a week.

    Both people want to lose as much weight as they can - SAFELY so they both plan to eat at 1250 calories a day.
    However, they then both decide they will start exercising and start doing cardio for 30 minutes each day.

    If our fellow did not eat back his exercise and stayed at 1250 he would now be tracking to lose more than 2 lb a week - an unsafe rate of weight loss. To stay at a healthy rate if weight loss Example 1 should be eating those exercise calories back!

    Our gal, is a different story. 1250 calories is only .5 pound of weight loss a month for her. She can choose her path. Eat the exercise calories back ( because let’s face it, 1250 calories a day isn’t most peoples idea of fun) OR she could choose to continue eating at 1250 and lose weight faster - now at a rate of almost .8 pounds a week (because let’s face it, .5 pounds a week doesn’t even feel like weight loss to many people, they might not even see a difference for months)

    Now, if our gal started doing a long endurance type workout (ran a 1/2 marathon, biked 30 miles) and not just a 30 minute minimum recommended cardio - she would almost certainly need to eat back exercise calories to keep herself fueled for that, even if her overall calories were still under the safe 2 pounds a week loss.

    So eat back your exercise calories or not? If one doesn’t eat back the exercise calories are they still losing weight at a safe 2 lb or less a week? If yes, than I’d say it is the individual’s choice - neither is ‘better’ for all in this circumstance. Is the person doing any extreme activities (High intensity or endurance exercise)? If yes, the individual must consider both weight loss rate and fueling for their activities in their healthy weight loss decision.

    Again, this is a pretty unpopular opinion on MFP. And there are way more individual factors that should play into this decision than we could go into here. Bottom line to me, the individual should do what feels right to them within the general healthy frameworks. And the individual needs to understand that’s everything MFP gives them numbers wise are ESTIMATES based upon AVERAGE persons. Adjustments for individual needs and preferences and results will more than likely be necessary.

    Current weight of the individuals is important here because 2 pounds a week isn't a safe goal for people who are closer to goal weight.

    While I agree that people can consider their own individual situation, if 1,250 is what you need for .5 pounds a week and you're increasing that deficit through exercise to lose 2, that's a really low net.

    While true, no way is someone who is exercising at the minimum cardio weekly requirements (or even double that amount) upping the rate of weight loss from .5 pounds to 2 pounds a week. As I said, there are way more factors than I could list here that need to be taken into account, and the level of exercise (as I indicated) is one of them.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    edited September 2017
    ryenday wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    ryenday wrote: »
    I’m another one with a very unpopular MFP opinion. I think it really depends on the circumstances of the individual.

    Example 1. Sedentary Male, reasonably tall 25 years old, let’s say MFP gives him 2250 calories to maintain and 1250 calories to lose 2 pounds a week.

    Example 2. Sedentary Female, short and over 50. Let’s say MFP gives her 1500 calories to maintain, but since MFP does not recommend eating below 1200 calories (because that is the minimum level necessary to get necessary nutrients is my understanding why) she gets 1250 to lose .5 pounds a week.

    Both people want to lose as much weight as they can - SAFELY so they both plan to eat at 1250 calories a day.
    However, they then both decide they will start exercising and start doing cardio for 30 minutes each day.

    If our fellow did not eat back his exercise and stayed at 1250 he would now be tracking to lose more than 2 lb a week - an unsafe rate of weight loss. To stay at a healthy rate if weight loss Example 1 should be eating those exercise calories back!

    Our gal, is a different story. 1250 calories is only .5 pound of weight loss a month for her. She can choose her path. Eat the exercise calories back ( because let’s face it, 1250 calories a day isn’t most peoples idea of fun) OR she could choose to continue eating at 1250 and lose weight faster - now at a rate of almost .8 pounds a week (because let’s face it, .5 pounds a week doesn’t even feel like weight loss to many people, they might not even see a difference for months)

    Now, if our gal started doing a long endurance type workout (ran a 1/2 marathon, biked 30 miles) and not just a 30 minute minimum recommended cardio - she would almost certainly need to eat back exercise calories to keep herself fueled for that, even if her overall calories were still under the safe 2 pounds a week loss.

    So eat back your exercise calories or not? If one doesn’t eat back the exercise calories are they still losing weight at a safe 2 lb or less a week? If yes, than I’d say it is the individual’s choice - neither is ‘better’ for all in this circumstance. Is the person doing any extreme activities (High intensity or endurance exercise)? If yes, the individual must consider both weight loss rate and fueling for their activities in their healthy weight loss decision.

    Again, this is a pretty unpopular opinion on MFP. And there are way more individual factors that should play into this decision than we could go into here. Bottom line to me, the individual should do what feels right to them within the general healthy frameworks. And the individual needs to understand that’s everything MFP gives them numbers wise are ESTIMATES based upon AVERAGE persons. Adjustments for individual needs and preferences and results will more than likely be necessary.

    Current weight of the individuals is important here because 2 pounds a week isn't a safe goal for people who are closer to goal weight.

    While I agree that people can consider their own individual situation, if 1,250 is what you need for .5 pounds a week and you're increasing that deficit through exercise to lose 2, that's a really low net.

    While true, no way is someone who is exercising at the minimum cardio weekly requirements upping the rate of weight loss from .5 pounds to 2 pounds a week. As I said, there are way more factors than I could list here that need to be taken into account, and the level of exercise (as I indicated) is one of them.

    Apologies, I missed that in your initial post. I agree that people who aren't doing much exercise don't have to be as concerned with fueling that activity.
  • ryenday
    ryenday Posts: 1,540 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    ryenday wrote: »
    I’m another one with a very unpopular MFP opinion. I think it really depends on the circumstances of the individual.

    Example 1. Sedentary Male, reasonably tall 25 years old, let’s say MFP gives him 2250 calories to maintain and 1250 calories to lose 2 pounds a week.

    Example 2. Sedentary Female, short and over 50. Let’s say MFP gives her 1500 calories to maintain, but since MFP does not recommend eating below 1200 calories (because that is the minimum level necessary to get necessary nutrients is my understanding why) she gets 1250 to lose .5 pounds a week.

    Both people want to lose as much weight as they can - SAFELY so they both plan to eat at 1250 calories a day.
    However, they then both decide they will start exercising and start doing cardio for 30 minutes each day.

    If our fellow did not eat back his exercise and stayed at 1250 he would now be tracking to lose more than 2 lb a week - an unsafe rate of weight loss. To stay at a healthy rate if weight loss Example 1 should be eating those exercise calories back!

    Our gal, is a different story. 1250 calories is only .5 pound of weight loss a month for her. She can choose her path. Eat the exercise calories back ( because let’s face it, 1250 calories a day isn’t most peoples idea of fun) OR she could choose to continue eating at 1250 and lose weight faster - now at a rate of almost .8 pounds a week (because let’s face it, .5 pounds a week doesn’t even feel like weight loss to many people, they might not even see a difference for months)

    Now, if our gal started doing a long endurance type workout (ran a 1/2 marathon, biked 30 miles) and not just a 30 minute minimum recommended cardio - she would almost certainly need to eat back exercise calories to keep herself fueled for that, even if her overall calories were still under the safe 2 pounds a week loss.

    So eat back your exercise calories or not? If one doesn’t eat back the exercise calories are they still losing weight at a safe 2 lb or less a week? If yes, than I’d say it is the individual’s choice - neither is ‘better’ for all in this circumstance. Is the person doing any extreme activities (High intensity or endurance exercise)? If yes, the individual must consider both weight loss rate and fueling for their activities in their healthy weight loss decision.

    Again, this is a pretty unpopular opinion on MFP. And there are way more individual factors that should play into this decision than we could go into here. Bottom line to me, the individual should do what feels right to them within the general healthy frameworks. And the individual needs to understand that’s everything MFP gives them numbers wise are ESTIMATES based upon AVERAGE persons. Adjustments for individual needs and preferences and results will more than likely be necessary.

    Your example is flawed from the outset.
    First, a 25 year old male who is "reasonably tall" who has maintenance calories of 2250? That's a very low TDEE for a young "reasonably tall" male. I used this calculator:

    https://tdeecalculator.net/result.php?s=imperial&age=25&g=male&lbs=200&in=72&act=1.2&bf=&f=1

    and a height of 6'0 tall. To get a sedentary maintenance of 2250, the man would be 190 lbs. If he's 190 lbs, he's barely in the overweight category, and thus, doesn't have significant weight to lose and shouldn't be aiming for 2 lbs/week. Also, MFP will not go below 1500 calories for males, so your hypothetical scenario doesn't work.

    Similarly, what is the weight of the female? Does she have over 75 lbs to lose, which is what would justify the 2 lb/week goal?

    Fine, the guy is 5’10 and 230 lb. the gal has only 50 lb to lose, but she’s only increasing to .8 lb a week (if the estimates and averages actually work for her) anyway so your point is irrelevant.
  • ryenday
    ryenday Posts: 1,540 Member
    edited September 2017
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    ryenday wrote: »
    I’m another one with a very unpopular MFP opinion. I think it really depends on the circumstances of the individual.

    Example 1. Sedentary Male, reasonably tall 25 years old, let’s say MFP gives him 2250 calories to maintain and 1250 calories to lose 2 pounds a week.

    Example 2. Sedentary Female, short and over 50. Let’s say MFP gives her 1500 calories to maintain, but since MFP does not recommend eating below 1200 calories (because that is the minimum level necessary to get necessary nutrients is my understanding why) she gets 1250 to lose .5 pounds a week.

    Both people want to lose as much weight as they can - SAFELY so they both plan to eat at 1250 calories a day.
    However, they then both decide they will start exercising and start doing cardio for 30 minutes each day.

    If our fellow did not eat back his exercise and stayed at 1250 he would now be tracking to lose more than 2 lb a week - an unsafe rate of weight loss. To stay at a healthy rate if weight loss Example 1 should be eating those exercise calories back!

    Our gal, is a different story. 1250 calories is only .5 pound of weight loss a month for her. She can choose her path. Eat the exercise calories back ( because let’s face it, 1250 calories a day isn’t most peoples idea of fun) OR she could choose to continue eating at 1250 and lose weight faster - now at a rate of almost .8 pounds a week (because let’s face it, .5 pounds a week doesn’t even feel like weight loss to many people, they might not even see a difference for months)

    Now, if our gal started doing a long endurance type workout (ran a 1/2 marathon, biked 30 miles) and not just a 30 minute minimum recommended cardio - she would almost certainly need to eat back exercise calories to keep herself fueled for that, even if her overall calories were still under the safe 2 pounds a week loss.

    So eat back your exercise calories or not? If one doesn’t eat back the exercise calories are they still losing weight at a safe 2 lb or less a week? If yes, than I’d say it is the individual’s choice - neither is ‘better’ for all in this circumstance. Is the person doing any extreme activities (High intensity or endurance exercise)? If yes, the individual must consider both weight loss rate and fueling for their activities in their healthy weight loss decision.

    Again, this is a pretty unpopular opinion on MFP. And there are way more individual factors that should play into this decision than we could go into here. Bottom line to me, the individual should do what feels right to them within the general healthy frameworks. And the individual needs to understand that’s everything MFP gives them numbers wise are ESTIMATES based upon AVERAGE persons. Adjustments for individual needs and preferences and results will more than likely be necessary.

    This all comes down to how much weight you need to lose.

    Seriously.

    This is not about feelings, because bodies are adaptable.

    To a point. Then they crash.

    It's not safe to lose 2 pounds a week if you don't have a lot of body fat/weight to lose. All you're going to do is catabolize muscle.

    That's if you can keep the game up without being led into binge cycles.

    Ask me how I know that happens.

    As I said, a very unpopular opinion on MFP.

    I clearly stated the gal was going to change from .5 to .8 pound a week weight loss if she left the exercise calories on the table (average 30 mins cardio a day). Nowhere even near that 2 pounds. estimated calories of 100 to 150 per 1/2 hour based upon real exercise estimates from Apple Watch for 5’3 woman with 50 lb to lose, 30 mins brisk walk or Exercycle averages

    And I thought I clearly stated that more lengthy or more intense exercise most likely needed to be specifically fueled for weight loss to be healthy.
  • ryenday
    ryenday Posts: 1,540 Member
    edited September 2017
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    ryenday wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    ryenday wrote: »
    I’m another one with a very unpopular MFP opinion. I think it really depends on the circumstances of the individual.

    Example 1. Sedentary Male, reasonably tall 25 years old, let’s say MFP gives him 2250 calories to maintain and 1250 calories to lose 2 pounds a week.

    Example 2. Sedentary Female, short and over 50. Let’s say MFP gives her 1500 calories to maintain, but since MFP does not recommend eating below 1200 calories (because that is the minimum level necessary to get necessary nutrients is my understanding why) she gets 1250 to lose .5 pounds a week.

    Both people want to lose as much weight as they can - SAFELY so they both plan to eat at 1250 calories a day.
    However, they then both decide they will start exercising and start doing cardio for 30 minutes each day.

    If our fellow did not eat back his exercise and stayed at 1250 he would now be tracking to lose more than 2 lb a week - an unsafe rate of weight loss. To stay at a healthy rate if weight loss Example 1 should be eating those exercise calories back!

    Our gal, is a different story. 1250 calories is only .5 pound of weight loss a month for her. She can choose her path. Eat the exercise calories back ( because let’s face it, 1250 calories a day isn’t most peoples idea of fun) OR she could choose to continue eating at 1250 and lose weight faster - now at a rate of almost .8 pounds a week (because let’s face it, .5 pounds a week doesn’t even feel like weight loss to many people, they might not even see a difference for months)

    Now, if our gal started doing a long endurance type workout (ran a 1/2 marathon, biked 30 miles) and not just a 30 minute minimum recommended cardio - she would almost certainly need to eat back exercise calories to keep herself fueled for that, even if her overall calories were still under the safe 2 pounds a week loss.

    So eat back your exercise calories or not? If one doesn’t eat back the exercise calories are they still losing weight at a safe 2 lb or less a week? If yes, than I’d say it is the individual’s choice - neither is ‘better’ for all in this circumstance. Is the person doing any extreme activities (High intensity or endurance exercise)? If yes, the individual must consider both weight loss rate and fueling for their activities in their healthy weight loss decision.

    Again, this is a pretty unpopular opinion on MFP. And there are way more individual factors that should play into this decision than we could go into here. Bottom line to me, the individual should do what feels right to them within the general healthy frameworks. And the individual needs to understand that’s everything MFP gives them numbers wise are ESTIMATES based upon AVERAGE persons. Adjustments for individual needs and preferences and results will more than likely be necessary.

    Your example is flawed from the outset.
    First, a 25 year old male who is "reasonably tall" who has maintenance calories of 2250? That's a very low TDEE for a young "reasonably tall" male. I used this calculator:

    https://tdeecalculator.net/result.php?s=imperial&age=25&g=male&lbs=200&in=72&act=1.2&bf=&f=1

    and a height of 6'0 tall. To get a sedentary maintenance of 2250, the man would be 190 lbs. If he's 190 lbs, he's barely in the overweight category, and thus, doesn't have significant weight to lose and shouldn't be aiming for 2 lbs/week. Also, MFP will not go below 1500 calories for males, so your hypothetical scenario doesn't work.

    Similarly, what is the weight of the female? Does she have over 75 lbs to lose, which is what would justify the 2 lb/week goal?

    Fine, the guy is 5’10 and 230 lb. the gal has only 50 lb to lose, but she’s only increasing to .8 lb a week (if the estimates and averages actually work for her) anyway so your point is irrelevant.

    But then his TDEE is 2440, not 2250 as you suggested. He still shouldn't be aiming to lose 2 lbs/week, as he has about 60 lbs to lose in order to get to a normal BMI. He should be aiming for 1.5 lb/week, which would be a deficit of 750 cals and would give him a calorie goal of 1690.

    I'm not sure how being accurate with numbers and using realistic scenarios is irrelevant...

    I used this calculator for hypothetical guy got 2245 maintenance calories. Guess I’m inaccurate by 5 calories. https://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm

    Tho two calculations giving approx 200 difference in calories is somewhat disturbing, imo

    AND, lol I already said hypothetical guy SHOULD be eating his exercise calories, so yeah pretty irrelevant argument.

Categories