Do YOU personally eat back your workout calories?
Options
Replies
-
moonangel12 wrote: »
MFP is designed for your to eat back at least some of your exercise calories - some recommend starting with 50% and adjusting based on your weight trend compared to your set goals. I eat back 100% and have not seen any ill effect on my weight loss efforts, even at .5lb/week. Ignoring them completely can lead to underfueling and undernourishing your body long term - fatigue, muscle loss, hair loss, and other nasty effects in time, especially if someone is already at a steeper deficit. And some people have higher calorie burns - on a Sprint triathlon day I will hit around 1000 burned. To ignore that would not be good for my body in the long run (and short term I would by tired, hungry, and grouchy!)Nope. And it's not a good idea to do so, especially when you're trying to maintain a smaller deifict or are closer to GW. the reason being that at 2 to 400 calorie deficit can be wiped out by just one or two mistracked or misweighed meals. Also provided that most fitness trackers are up to 20% inaccurate, it's just not worth it in my opinion.
I usually just assume the people giving the advice not to eat them don't actually get what you and I would consider exercise (or else they'll have bonked bad and learned their lesson). ("Exercise" means different things to different people.. those meandering further around the supermarket aisles with a Fitbit can probably safely ignore them).
My answer to the original question: F* yes. I eat them. (I'll deduct some if I was in a paceline, add some for a trail/off- trail run).
In addition to the athlete side, I think a lot of the people who don’t lose/gain when they eat them may be eyeballing portions or using measuring cups (eg-eating much more than they think) and are probably eating their exercise calories already because their intake is more than what they are logging.6 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »moonangel12 wrote: »
MFP is designed for your to eat back at least some of your exercise calories - some recommend starting with 50% and adjusting based on your weight trend compared to your set goals. I eat back 100% and have not seen any ill effect on my weight loss efforts, even at .5lb/week. Ignoring them completely can lead to underfueling and undernourishing your body long term - fatigue, muscle loss, hair loss, and other nasty effects in time, especially if someone is already at a steeper deficit. And some people have higher calorie burns - on a Sprint triathlon day I will hit around 1000 burned. To ignore that would not be good for my body in the long run (and short term I would by tired, hungry, and grouchy!)Nope. And it's not a good idea to do so, especially when you're trying to maintain a smaller deifict or are closer to GW. the reason being that at 2 to 400 calorie deficit can be wiped out by just one or two mistracked or misweighed meals. Also provided that most fitness trackers are up to 20% inaccurate, it's just not worth it in my opinion.
I usually just assume the people giving the advice not to eat them don't actually get what you and I would consider exercise (or else they'll have bonked bad and learned their lesson). ("Exercise" means different things to different people.. those meandering further around the supermarket aisles with a Fitbit can probably safely ignore them).
My answer to the original question: F* yes. I eat them. (I'll deduct some if I was in a paceline, add some for a trail/off- trail run).
In addition to the athlete side, I think a lot of the people who don’t lose/gain when they eat them may be eyeballing portions or using measuring cups (eg-eating much more than they think) and are probably eating their exercise calories already because their intake is more than what they are logging.
yes- that too.3 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »moonangel12 wrote: »
MFP is designed for your to eat back at least some of your exercise calories - some recommend starting with 50% and adjusting based on your weight trend compared to your set goals. I eat back 100% and have not seen any ill effect on my weight loss efforts, even at .5lb/week. Ignoring them completely can lead to underfueling and undernourishing your body long term - fatigue, muscle loss, hair loss, and other nasty effects in time, especially if someone is already at a steeper deficit. And some people have higher calorie burns - on a Sprint triathlon day I will hit around 1000 burned. To ignore that would not be good for my body in the long run (and short term I would by tired, hungry, and grouchy!)Nope. And it's not a good idea to do so, especially when you're trying to maintain a smaller deifict or are closer to GW. the reason being that at 2 to 400 calorie deficit can be wiped out by just one or two mistracked or misweighed meals. Also provided that most fitness trackers are up to 20% inaccurate, it's just not worth it in my opinion.
I usually just assume the people giving the advice not to eat them don't actually get what you and I would consider exercise (or else they'll have bonked bad and learned their lesson). ("Exercise" means different things to different people.. those meandering further around the supermarket aisles with a Fitbit can probably safely ignore them).
My answer to the original question: F* yes. I eat them. (I'll deduct some if I was in a paceline, add some for a trail/off- trail run).
In addition to the athlete side, I think a lot of the people who don’t lose/gain when they eat them may be eyeballing portions or using measuring cups (eg-eating much more than they think) and are probably eating their exercise calories already because their intake is more than what they are logging.
But I think the overall thrust of your post is potentially exactly what the "create a buffer" people mean and intend, whether they've thought it all the way through in detail or not. (I'm not ignoring the bolded, by the way; just going on with commenting.) There's a choice between precision, and approximation. So, one choice-set is log approximately, don't eat back the exercise. (Some don't realize how very approximate their logging is, I know.
).
Personally, I prefer more precision, because it's so easy (and has side benefits like sound(er) nutritional data; and ability to estimate one's own maintenance calories accurately, potentially even in varying conditions).
BTW: Not disputing the point about endurance athletes. Gotta fuel higher activity levels (regardless whether exercise, job, or anything else), or the piper will eventually need to be paid.
I'd add that when losing weight, it doesn't take an elite level of exercise activity on top of a fairly aggressive deficit (high-ish target loss rate) to create a potential problem over the period of time most meaningful weight loss efforts are going to take.
Edited: clarification3 -
I don't log calories so no. If I'm concerned about body weight, I eye ball my weight trends and adjust intake in general.2
-
Duck_Puddle wrote: »moonangel12 wrote: »
MFP is designed for your to eat back at least some of your exercise calories - some recommend starting with 50% and adjusting based on your weight trend compared to your set goals. I eat back 100% and have not seen any ill effect on my weight loss efforts, even at .5lb/week. Ignoring them completely can lead to underfueling and undernourishing your body long term - fatigue, muscle loss, hair loss, and other nasty effects in time, especially if someone is already at a steeper deficit. And some people have higher calorie burns - on a Sprint triathlon day I will hit around 1000 burned. To ignore that would not be good for my body in the long run (and short term I would by tired, hungry, and grouchy!)Nope. And it's not a good idea to do so, especially when you're trying to maintain a smaller deifict or are closer to GW. the reason being that at 2 to 400 calorie deficit can be wiped out by just one or two mistracked or misweighed meals. Also provided that most fitness trackers are up to 20% inaccurate, it's just not worth it in my opinion.
I usually just assume the people giving the advice not to eat them don't actually get what you and I would consider exercise (or else they'll have bonked bad and learned their lesson). ("Exercise" means different things to different people.. those meandering further around the supermarket aisles with a Fitbit can probably safely ignore them).
My answer to the original question: F* yes. I eat them. (I'll deduct some if I was in a paceline, add some for a trail/off- trail run).
In addition to the athlete side, I think a lot of the people who don’t lose/gain when they eat them may be eyeballing portions or using measuring cups (eg-eating much more than they think) and are probably eating their exercise calories already because their intake is more than what they are logging.
But I think the overall thrust of your post is potentially exactly what the "create a buffer" people mean and intend, whether they've thought it all the way through in detail or not. (I'm not ignoring the bolded, by the way; just going on with commenting.) There's a choice between precision, and approximation. So, one choice-set is log approximately, don't eat back the exercise. (Some don't realize how very approximate their logging is, I know. ).
Personally, I prefer more precision, because it's so easy (and has side benefits like sound(er) nutritional data; and ability to estimate one's own maintenance calories accurately, potentially even in varying conditions).
BTW: Not disputing the point about endurance athletes. Gotta fuel higher activity levels (regardless whether exercise, job, or anything else), or the piper will eventually need to be paid.
I'd add that when losing weight, it doesn't take an elite level of exercise activity on top of a fairly aggressive deficit (high-ish target loss rate) to create a potential problem over the period of time most meaningful weight loss efforts are going to take.
Edited: clarification
Oh-for sure on the people talking about creating a buffer. I was thinking more of those who militantly announce that consuming exercise calories leads to gain (or no loss) and purport this as gospel to those asking what to do.
No question that there’s a balance in all this. And choosing to not eat them and/or eat a small portion or only in cases of extreme hunger, etc in exchange for looser/approximate logging by choice/possible errors is a different kind of advice than “don’t eat them if you want to lose” because evil/magic!
The end result is the same of course-that whether consciously or not, they are being consumed (by those losing at the anticipated rate)-but one acknowledges that within the advice narrative and one does not (which could lead to a poor choice if an advise seeker is not logging in the same manner).
5 -
I know it sounds like an excuse but I try not to eat all the calories but sometimes with all that is going on I find myself compensating with food. I do meditation and my runs really help as well but sometimes it is difficult.1
-
gazbooker1 wrote: »I know it sounds like an excuse but I try not to eat all the calories but sometimes with all that is going on I find myself compensating with food. I do meditation and my runs really help as well but sometimes it is difficult.
I don't think you should approach properly fueling your activity level like some kind of moral failing.11 -
I personally don’t but that’s so I don’t go crazy seeing how many calories have freed up.2
-
This might illustrate the point a bit more numerically on why it can be a really, really, really bad idea to not eat exercise calories... My RMR as a 107 lb 4'10" female is estimated at 1330 calories... These are my Garmin-estimated (mostly cycling and running) exercise estimates over the last month...
7 -
One thing is for sure, it really doesn't work if you try eating back someone else's exercise calories.
I attached a Fitbit to my cat and and set it for his weight. It was decent steps, but still I ended up having negative calorie adjustments put at 1500 every day. For some reason I felt tired. Weight was coming off pretty fast, so there was that.
So instead I tried eating back Usain Bolt's exercise calories. I mean, I didn't attach a fit bit to him, I just looked up his training routine and did a calculation. Just to be safe, I cut it half. After 2 days I gained back everything from eating back the cat's exercise calories.18 -
My fitness watch automatically adjusts my calorie goal to lose 1 lb a week, and I pretty much always aim for that. So long answer short, yes.1
-
Exercise calories are the best tasting calories.9
-
I personally don't, but probably will start when I hit my goal (down 37 [33 before using MFP], 3 to go).
What I'm doing is working for me.4 -
Hell yeah, but I like to try and leave a little in the green.0
-
Yes, pretty much all of them - I’m not militant about specifically eating back “400 exercise calories” but I eat up to the calorie level MFP gives me with exercise, or typically just below. A 5k run only burns approx 350 calories for me so I’d typically add in 30g of macadamia nuts or something - it’s really not a large amount but it makes a difference to energy levels and endurance for me.
I run 40km a week. So, if I didn’t eat those calories back I would be paying the piper pretty quickly. I need the calories to fuel my running, and I don’t see any need to apologetic about that.2 -
Exercise calories are the best tasting calories.
They SO are. (They are also often ice cream cones in the last few miles of a ride and a post-ride hard cider and ...)
ETA: It's entirely possible I've become the pre-eminent authority on ice cream shop locations and weeknight closing hours in a large radius around my metro area while creating cycling routes. (Note: It only takes ~10 miles to burn a baby cone
) 5 -
Exercise calories are the best tasting calories.
They SO are. (They are also often ice cream cones in the last few miles of a ride and a post-ride hard cider and ...)
ETA: It's entirely possible I've become the pre-eminent authority on ice cream shop locations and weeknight closing hours in a large radius around my metro area while creating cycling routes. (Note: It only takes ~10 miles to burn a baby cone )
I don't think anything tastes better than that post-run cider/beer, it's just scientific fact.3 -
No, I don't.1
-
Some of them. Sometimes only a tiny bit, sometimes nearly all of them. - It depends on a lot of factors (how hungry I am, how much exercise I did, what food I am having...)2
-
Yeah, but probably not all of them. If I do anything over 90 minutes definitely need to replenish glycogen1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions