Overeating the day after a big exertion

Options
Jthanmyfitnesspal
Jthanmyfitnesspal Posts: 3,521 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
Yep, ran for 90 minutes yesterday. Calorie estimate was 1000kcals (It was a pretty slow pace to start to get used to that distance.) Today, there isn't a carb I can pass up. It's a rest day, so I'm probably over-compensating.

Man, bod wants them carbs! Ya feel me?
«1

Replies

  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    Options
    The runger is real :laugh:
  • carolineb81
    carolineb81 Posts: 459 Member
    Options
    Yep the day after a long run I'm always starving
  • garystrickland357
    garystrickland357 Posts: 598 Member
    Options
    I ran 10 miles yesterday and feel the runger. Of course I ate like a horse and was still 1,000 calories under goal yesterday so it will balance out today.
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    Options
    garystrickland357 wrote: »
    I ran 10 miles yesterday and feel the runger. Of course I ate like a horse and was still 1,000 calories under goal yesterday so it will balance out today.

    I ran 9.2 miles yesterday... only got 770 cals... :grumble: :sad:
  • collectingblues
    collectingblues Posts: 2,541 Member
    edited March 2019
    Options
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    garystrickland357 wrote: »
    I ran 10 miles yesterday and feel the runger. Of course I ate like a horse and was still 1,000 calories under goal yesterday so it will balance out today.

    I ran 9.2 miles yesterday... only got 770 cals... :grumble: :sad:

    *nods sadly*

    5-mile run Sunday afternoon only got me 314...
  • garystrickland357
    garystrickland357 Posts: 598 Member
    edited March 2019
    Options
    It pays to be a Clydesdale... Oh, and those weren’t all run calories. I’m one of those folks that exercise suppresses my appetite - at the time. The next day is the struggle.
  • pierinifitness
    pierinifitness Posts: 2,231 Member
    edited March 2019
    Options
    A 60 minute run today got me 5.85 miles and 700 calories. I’ve got on OMAD “science experiment” in progress which got tested because of the run. I did well, keeping busy kept runger quiet.
  • firef1y72
    firef1y72 Posts: 1,579 Member
    Options
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    The runger is real :laugh:

    So much this.
    I do a long run (10-20miles) every Sunday and from around 7pm Sunday until Tuesday morning I eat every thing in sight. Good job I'm in bulk mode really.
  • firef1y72
    firef1y72 Posts: 1,579 Member
    Options
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    garystrickland357 wrote: »
    I ran 10 miles yesterday and feel the runger. Of course I ate like a horse and was still 1,000 calories under goal yesterday so it will balance out today.

    I ran 9.2 miles yesterday... only got 770 cals... :grumble: :sad:

    I ran 10 very hilly miles in 50mph winds and got 1000 calories, it did take me over 2 hours though and was very hard work.
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    Options
    firef1y72 wrote: »
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    garystrickland357 wrote: »
    I ran 10 miles yesterday and feel the runger. Of course I ate like a horse and was still 1,000 calories under goal yesterday so it will balance out today.

    I ran 9.2 miles yesterday... only got 770 cals... :grumble: :sad:

    I ran 10 very hilly miles in 50mph winds and got 1000 calories, it did take me over 2 hours though and was very hard work.

    i wish i got 1000 cals for 10 miles... :laugh:
  • DX2JX2
    DX2JX2 Posts: 1,921 Member
    Options
    Just make sure you eat the calories instead of drinking them. I ran my 10 miles on Saturday AM and didn't quite eat back the calories with a good sized lunch. I made the mistake of having a few cocktails before dinner and was promptly knocked on my *kitten* by the liquor given that I was still at a net negative calorie count for the day.

    I won't be making that mistake again soon.
  • Jthanmyfitnesspal
    Jthanmyfitnesspal Posts: 3,521 Member
    Options
    Well, the old

    kcals=.75*(weight in lbs)*(miles)

    Is pretty crude, but it does underline the point that calorie burn from running scales with weight. Put differently, being lighter makes you a more-efficient runner.
  • DX2JX2
    DX2JX2 Posts: 1,921 Member
    Options
    Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »
    Well, the old

    kcals=.75*(weight in lbs)*(miles)

    Is pretty crude, but it does underline the point that calorie burn from running scales with weight. Put differently, being lighter makes you a more-efficient runner.

    0.75 or 0.63? I thought it was the latter per Runner's World.
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,860 Member
    Options
    garystrickland357 wrote: »
    I ran 10 miles yesterday and feel the runger. Of course I ate like a horse and was still 1,000 calories under goal yesterday so it will balance out today.
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    garystrickland357 wrote: »
    I ran 10 miles yesterday and feel the runger. Of course I ate like a horse and was still 1,000 calories under goal yesterday so it will balance out today.

    I ran 9.2 miles yesterday... only got 770 cals... :grumble: :sad:
    collectingblues wrote: »
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    garystrickland357 wrote: »
    I ran 10 miles yesterday and feel the runger. Of course I ate like a horse and was still 1,000 calories under goal yesterday so it will balance out today.

    I ran 9.2 miles yesterday... only got 770 cals... :grumble: :sad:

    *nods sadly*

    5-mile run Sunday afternoon only got me 314...
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    firef1y72 wrote: »
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    garystrickland357 wrote: »
    I ran 10 miles yesterday and feel the runger. Of course I ate like a horse and was still 1,000 calories under goal yesterday so it will balance out today.

    I ran 9.2 miles yesterday... only got 770 cals... :grumble: :sad:

    I ran 10 very hilly miles in 50mph winds and got 1000 calories, it did take me over 2 hours though and was very hard work.

    i wish i got 1000 cals for 10 miles... :laugh:

    So much this. With you both there. ~72 cal/mi <grumble>

    And yes..I'm ravenous the day after endurance stuff.
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,860 Member
    Options
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »
    Well, the old

    kcals=.75*(weight in lbs)*(miles)

    Is pretty crude, but it does underline the point that calorie burn from running scales with weight. Put differently, being lighter makes you a more-efficient runner.

    0.75 or 0.63? I thought it was the latter per Runner's World.

    the latter. (the former is probably the gross number including BMR).
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,860 Member
    Options
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    Just make sure you eat the calories instead of drinking them. I ran my 10 miles on Saturday AM and didn't quite eat back the calories with a good sized lunch. I made the mistake of having a few cocktails before dinner and was promptly knocked on my *kitten* by the liquor given that I was still at a net negative calorie count for the day.

    I won't be making that mistake again soon.

    ...but it does make that 100 calories of rum so much more effective. (I personally consider that a plus).
  • mbaker566
    mbaker566 Posts: 11,233 Member
    Options
    i haven't really experienced it with running but with aerial yoga, i will eat a horse.
  • pridesabtch
    pridesabtch Posts: 2,331 Member
    Options
    I once ate an entire pizza had a few beers and then went to dinner and had a steak and a few more beers after a Century ride with a 20mph speed. I rode the 100 miles back the next day (slower) even eating a bit every 25 miles or so, I was tanked. Couldn't even eat when I got done, but the next 2 days I was a beast. My husband laughed, he's a 3:15 marathoner and he can put it back after his long runs. Net loss for the week was 3#.
  • RunnerGrl1982
    RunnerGrl1982 Posts: 412 Member
    edited March 2019
    Options
    DX2JX2 wrote: »
    Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »
    Well, the old

    kcals=.75*(weight in lbs)*(miles)

    Is pretty crude, but it does underline the point that calorie burn from running scales with weight. Put differently, being lighter makes you a more-efficient runner.

    0.75 or 0.63? I thought it was the latter per Runner's World.

    I'll have to look up where I read this, but the calculations were:

    Body Weight x .75 x miles = Gross Calories Burned

    Body Weight x .63 x miles = Net Calories Burned

    My Garmin puts me right in between the two for calories burned, which is surprisingly pretty accurate over the time I've been tracking my runs.

    I'm thinking perhaps the Gross Calorie Burn is taking into account 'after burn' as your heart rate returns to it's resting heart rate post run.

    But, please take what I've written with a grain a salt, as I do not know that for sure. This is simply my deduction on the matter.
  • Jthanmyfitnesspal
    Jthanmyfitnesspal Posts: 3,521 Member
    Options
    I can't remember where I got the .75 factor. My only point was that it scales with body weight. Interesting discussion.

    I assume Garmin and other apps take a number of other factors into consideration, such as grade. I note that the Garmin calorie estimates are low when you run at a grade on the treadmill.

Categories