Eating Back Calories

2»

Replies

  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    What do you mean, it's "just" maths? Wash your mouth out with soap and water!

    Actually, many dieticians and doctors would agree with not eating back a good proportion of exercise calories, IF the person is clinically obese. There is no "one size fits all" strategy.

    That just means they're making the calorie deficit larger. That's fine, as long as it's the appropriate calorie deficit. Mathematically it works out the same. All of these are the same:

    - Setting a 500 cal deficit and working out 500 cals/day and eating back the calories
    - Setting no deficit and working out 500 cals/day and not eating back the calories.
    - Setting a 500 cal deficit/day and not exercising at all

    Get it? No? Then I give up.

    And the beauty of MFP is that it actually isolates exercise as a controllable variable. In most approaches, exercise levels are factored in to TDEE. The problem of doing so is that some days, some weeks, a person may not expend as many calories due to decreased exercise activity. Or the converse is true, they expend more than expected. Just like the intake variable, where a person counts the calories (fuel) ingested, and manages that to maintain the deficit required to lose weight.

    By measuring calories expended through exercise as a variable, the ongoing average calorie deficit can be more closely monitored and accurately accounted for.

    It is a clearly superior method. It doesn't mean that doing the math other ways won't achieve a similar result. But other ways leave the exercise variable more to the FAITH that your activity levels are relatively static and predictable. Problematic, in my opinion.

    I love this explanation, great post
  • agthorn
    agthorn Posts: 1,844 Member
    And the beauty of MFP is that it actually isolates exercise as a controllable variable. In most approaches, exercise levels are factored in to TDEE. The problem of doing so is that some days, some weeks, a person may not expend as many calories due to decreased exercise activity. Or the converse is true, they expend more than expected. Just like the intake variable, where a person counts the calories (fuel) ingested, and manages that to maintain the deficit required to lose weight.

    By measuring calories expended through exercise as a variable, the ongoing average calorie deficit can be more closely monitored and accurately accounted for.

    It is a clearly superior method. It doesn't mean that doing the math other ways won't achieve a similar result. But other ways leave the exercise variable more to the FAITH that your activity levels are relatively static and predictable. Problematic, in my opinion.

    YES YES YES. If I go to a yoga class, I burn about 185 calories. If I bike 25 miles, I burn about 1000 calories. I can say "Well I'm going to yoga 6x a week and biking once a week, so my activity component should be about 300 calories a day" and then cross my fingers that I actually do that. But what if I bike twice that week? I didn't eat enough. What if I don't do anything at all because I'm working late? Then I ate too much. MFP gives you your weight loss deficit *independent of any exercise* and only accounts for exercise after it has been completed. Because a lot of people have great fitness goals that never actually materialize.
  • solpwr
    solpwr Posts: 1,039 Member
    "You can lead a horse to water", something, something, something... pants.
  • TourThePast
    TourThePast Posts: 1,753 Member
    What do you mean, it's "just" maths? Wash your mouth out with soap and water!

    Actually, many dieticians and doctors would agree with not eating back a good proportion of exercise calories, IF the person is clinically obese. There is no "one size fits all" strategy.

    That just means they're making the calorie deficit larger.
    Yes, research shows that those who are clinically obese can withstand far higher calorie defecits without impacting their metabolic rate adversely, and without a disproportionate loss of muscle.
    Mathematically it works out the same. All of these are the same:

    - Setting a 500 cal deficit and working out 500 cals/day and eating back the calories
    - Setting no deficit and working out 500 cals/day and not eating back the calories.
    - Setting a 500 cal deficit/day and not exercising at all

    Get it? No? Then I give up.
    Those are all the same, but they're not the same as setting a 500 calorie defecit AND working out 500 calores as day and NOT eating back the calories, which for some people is perfectly reasonable.

    Unfortunately, as obvious as it seems to you and I, and as simple as we make the explanations, many people still won't get it.

    (For those who didn't get it, my dig about it being "just" maths was a dig at people who think maths is unimportant and boring, which it certainly isn't)
  • agthorn
    agthorn Posts: 1,844 Member
    Those are all the same, but they're not the same as setting a 500 calorie defecit AND working out 500 calores as day and NOT eating back the calories, which for some people is perfectly reasonable.

    But that is the same as setting a 1000 calorie deficit and not exercising...

    The main place that people run into problems (and interestingly, these are the people who seem to be most resistant to 'eating back' exercise calories) is when people ALREADY HAVE the 1000 calorie deficit (everybody wants to lose 2lbs a week, it seems...) and THEN they exercise on top of that, and don't eat those calories back either.
  • baisleac
    baisleac Posts: 2,019 Member
    "You can lead a horse to water", something, something, something... pants.

    :drinker: :drinker: :drinker:
  • JoAnn73
    JoAnn73 Posts: 161 Member
    Well I NEVER eat back the calories burned. I started out doing 1000 for a about 2 weeks to jump start my weightloss and then 1200. Now i am at 1400 and I workout 6days a week 2 of those days are weight training. 6 POUNDS TO GO!
  • TourThePast
    TourThePast Posts: 1,753 Member
    Those are all the same, but they're not the same as setting a 500 calorie defecit AND working out 500 calores as day and NOT eating back the calories, which for some people is perfectly reasonable.

    But that is the same as setting a 1000 calorie deficit and not exercising...
    Well, yes. My point was that some people, who are clinicaly obese, CAN sustain a huge (1000) calorie defecit AND the additional defecit created by not eating their exercise calories UNTIL they start approaching being merely overweight - so those people will be told by their nutritionalists to have a large calorie defecit AND not to eat their exercise calories. Under medical supervision, obviously.
    The main place that people run into problems (and interestingly, these are the people who seem to be most resistant to 'eating back' exercise calories) is when people ALREADY HAVE the 1000 calorie deficit (everybody wants to lose 2lbs a week, it seems...) and THEN they exercise on top of that, and don't eat those calories back either.
    Heh, yes. Crazy, they should enjoy the 2lb a week while they can. I want to lose 2lb a week, hell, I want to lose about ten pounds a week, but my maintenance calories are approaching 1550 a day (no that's not my BMI), and that's with three gym sessions a week - so I'm delighted to lose half a pound a week.

    To lose 2lb a week I'd have to get the carving knife out! :bigsmile:
  • FifiLea
    FifiLea Posts: 80 Member
    However, if you are just going to eat back the calories you worked out to burn, you're better suited just meeting your caloric restrictions and skipping the workouts because essentially that is what "eating back" calories does, negates the purpose of burning calories to begin with.

    That's assuming you work out strictly to lose weight. That's not a good idea in the first place because weight loss is 80% diet, 10% exercise and 10% genetics. Exercise is good for increasing the metabolism, cardiovascular health, strength . . . But if you chosee to look at only calories and ignore everything else, sure you can skip the exercise.

    This. I work out to improve my body, get healthy and get fitter. I've been thinner than I am now, but I've never been fitter and my body is the best it's ever been. By the time I get to my goal weight, I will be toned all over and I'll not only look good, I'll feel fantastic. And *BONUS* because I've eaten back my exercise calories (leaving me at 1200 cals per day net) I won't have been hungry at all!
  • MamaBear05
    MamaBear05 Posts: 100 Member
    I disagree with this. For me, the purpose of my exercise is to gain strength and endurance, not to simply burn calories. I am at maintenance now. My activity level is set at sedentary so MFP displays just my caloric needs for existing. I burn 300-500 calories a day from my workouts. On average, I "eat back" all of those calories because I do not want a deficit. I want to be as close to calories in = calories out as possible. So, I average 2000-2200 calories per day. If I go below for several days, I do lose weight.

    For those who want the deficit, they have two choices. Set their activity level at sedentary which will give them the number of calories they need to exist, then set how many pounds they want to lose per week and let MFP create the deficit to meet that goal by subtracting the calories from their daily allowance. Any exercise will create a larger deficit. For some, this is icing on the cake and may allow them to lose more weight faster because they are operating at an even greater deficit than they need to meet the pounds per week goal they set. For some, however, the daily deficit becomes too large and is not necessarily healthy. For example, your maintenance needs are 1700 and MFP sets your calorie allowance at 1200 to lose 1 pound per week. You already have your 500 calorie daily deficit. If you exercise each day and burn another 500 calories, you are operating at 700 calories. I am not a doctor so I can't speak to "starvation mode" and what not from eating too few calories, but I cannot imagine your body has enough fuel to effectively run itself and push more for exercise at only 700 calories.

    The second option is to set your daily activity level to active or whichever more closely fits your day, including your average activity during exercise. Doing it this way, the calorie allowance that MFP sets already includes the assumed calories you burn on an average day including your exercise, so you do not eat back the exercise calories or it decreases your daily deficit.

    I prefer the first way because I am more in control of making my calories in = calories out on a daily basis. On my rest days, I eat my maintenance calories. On days I work out hard, I eat what I burned so I am still as close to in = out as I can be.

    I hope all of that made sense.

    choosing to eat the required calories and skip workouts (for the purposes of arguing eating back calories) doesn't mean that you necessarily have to have unhealthy eating habits..you can put all your effort into eating right and skip workouts and still lose weight. Maybe not at the desired rate but still effectively. But you can not effectively eat back all the calories you burned and expect to lose weight. No health professional i've spoken with supports this, and truthfully very few places (1 or 2) outside of myfitnesspal.com have i even heard mention of "eating back calories"...

    i was just wondering if there is any science that supports this as a good idea.

    I think you are reiterating my point. I can set my activity level at sedentary and select that I want to lose 1 pound per week. MFP will give me my daily calorie allowance based on that information. If I do absolutely no exercise, eat the calories MFP tells me to eat (by way of healthy foods not just for weight lose but for general health), I will theoretically lose 1 pound per week. Or, I can work out, eat the original calories MFP told me to eat if I didn't work at all all, plus eat back all the calories I burned and still lose 1 pound per week because the standard deficit still exists in the original calories MFP told me to eat from the start.

    "Eating back" calories is only in MFP because the calculations are set up to take the deficit out of eating, not including the calories burned during exercise. MFP gives you the option when you select your activity level. If you include your usual level of exercise when you select your activity level, then the additional deficit from exercising is already included in your daily calorie allowance. If you select sedentary, then the calories expended during exercise are not already included and therefore an additional deficit.

    The science is not any different than any other fitness program. It is simply stated differently here on MFP because of the way the program runs the calculations based on your input. It gives each user more control over their daily caloric deficit.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories