Eating back burned calories?

Eating back calories that you legitimately burned by exercise, or by other means, won't make you gain weight. It'll put you in the same position you would have been without the exercise and food. Except without the hearing benefits of exercise.

Too big a deficit has issues, so by default the recommendation is to eat them.

Eat your execise calories, like you will have to when you get to goal weight, but try to make those estimates as reasonable as possible.

For walking (and other long duration but low intensity exercise) the issue of using net calorie estimates (the additional calorie burn over and above what you would have burned in that time period due to your exercise) rather than gross calories (exercise + what you would have burned anyway) becomes more significant.

A rough net calorie estimate for walking on level ground is bodyweight in pounds X an efficiency ratio of 0.3 - so for example a 200lb person would burn roughly 60cals per mile. To burn net 300cals would take that person 5 miles.

Lillymoo01 wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

Eat your execise calories, like you will have to when you get to goal weight, but try to make those estimates as reasonable as possible.

For walking (and other long duration but low intensity exercise) the issue of using net calorie estimates (the additional calorie burn over and above what you would have burned in that time period due to your exercise) rather than gross calories (exercise + what you would have burned anyway) becomes more significant.

A rough net calorie estimate for walking on level ground is bodyweight in pounds X an efficiency ratio of 0.3 - so for example a 200lb person would burn roughly 60cals per mile. To burn net 300cals would take that person 5 miles.

I have always found this calculation to be significantly lower than anything any app or fitness tracker gives me and long term data shows my Fitbit to be pretty accurate. It makes sense as to why. The formula does not take into consideration height and stride length. As someone who is under 5 foot, I need many more steps to walk a 1 mile than someone who is 6 foot. My guess is that this formula works for someone who is average height but not so much for those on either end of the spectrum.

Yes it's going to be an average for efficiency and yes not everyone will have the same efficiency but stride and height aren't really as significant as the simple physics of mass moved over distance. A tall person's longer stride will typically burn more calories than a short person's stride but more calories X fewer strides more compared to less calories X more strides will tend to even out.

Apps and trackers tend to be gross estimates - as are the estimates that MyFitnessPal sources.

Lillymoo01 wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

Lillymoo01 wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

Eat your execise calories, like you will have to when you get to goal weight, but try to make those estimates as reasonable as possible.

For walking (and other long duration but low intensity exercise) the issue of using net calorie estimates (the additional calorie burn over and above what you would have burned in that time period due to your exercise) rather than gross calories (exercise + what you would have burned anyway) becomes more significant.

A rough net calorie estimate for walking on level ground is bodyweight in pounds X an efficiency ratio of 0.3 - so for example a 200lb person would burn roughly 60cals per mile. To burn net 300cals would take that person 5 miles.

I have always found this calculation to be significantly lower than anything any app or fitness tracker gives me and long term data shows my Fitbit to be pretty accurate. It makes sense as to why. The formula does not take into consideration height and stride length. As someone who is under 5 foot, I need many more steps to walk a 1 mile than someone who is 6 foot. My guess is that this formula works for someone who is average height but not so much for those on either end of the spectrum.

Yes it's going to be an average for efficiency and yes not everyone will have the same efficiency but stride and height aren't really as significant as the simple physics of mass moved over distance. A tall person's longer stride will typically burn more calories than a short person's stride but more calories X fewer strides more compared to less calories X more strides will tend to even out.

Apps and trackers tend to be gross estimates - as are the estimates that MyFitnessPal sources.

If a tall person and a short person were the same weight wouldn't the short person burn more calories?

More likely they were extremely similar unless there's other factors at play.
e.g. for several months last year I had a severe limp from nerve impingment, my MIL has bad hips and waddles like a penguin....
It's still an estimate (and a population estimate with individual variance) but probably a better estimate.

With my stats (170lbs) an hour at 4mph is c. 204 net estimate, a gross estimate would be off by c. 100cals for that hour - that's a huge variance compared to small differences in walking efficency.
Not perfect but probably better.

PAV8888 wrote: »

Speed counts if you walk faster. Inclination (grade) counts. Neither are captured by the formula. (the level ground assumption is explicit)

But yes, most exercises are listed as "gross" calories as opposed to "net".

Speed counts if you walk a lot faster, beyond the range of normal walking speeds, otherwise it's really affecting the rate not the total if distance is the same.