eating workout calories?
caribeals
Posts: 105 Member
i'm new to this site, and noticed lots of people talking about eating their "workout calories". what in the heck are they talking about? i work out a ton, and am on a 1200 cal diet. after i punch in my exercise, it says i have earned about 1100 extra calories, even after i punch in my food intake for the whole day. what does all this mean?
0
Replies
-
i'm new to this site, and noticed lots of people talking about eating their "workout calories". what in the heck are they talking about? i work out a ton, and am on a 1200 cal diet. after i punch in my exercise, it says i have earned about 1100 extra calories, even after i punch in my food intake for the whole day. what does all this mean?0
-
if you burn 1100 cals at the gym you should be eating your 1200 PLUS the 1100 you burned. 1200 already puts you at a deficit, and if you exercise and don't eat those calories back you're creating an even larger deficit- in your case a DANGEROUSLY large one. Think of it this way: you give your body 1200 calories to function on. You use 1100 of those working out. That leave 100 measely calories for your body to perform ALL other functions (ex- breathing, digestion, heartbeat, blinking, moving, talking, thinking, EVERYTHING). Yep, you eat back exercise calories. If you can't eat 2300 calories in a day, do less exercise.0
-
Well said for a person who lost 60 pounds, You go GURL! I like your explaination0
-
if you burn 1100 cals at the gym you should be eating your 1200 PLUS the 1100 you burned. 1200 already puts you at a deficit, and if you exercise and don't eat those calories back you're creating an even larger deficit- in your case a DANGEROUSLY large one. Think of it this way: you give your body 1200 calories to function on. You use 1100 of those working out. That leave 100 measely calories for your body to perform ALL other functions (ex- breathing, digestion, heartbeat, blinking, moving, talking, thinking, EVERYTHING). Yep, you eat back exercise calories. If you can't eat 2300 calories in a day, do less exercise.
this is ONE theory..there are others,,,,,read the archive posts, some eat them all and some do not
get several opinions0 -
Yeah even I liked your explaination - VERY CLEAR !
Also I would like to congratulate you on your high spirits and determination of loosing weight.
I have been here for 1 month now and have lost only about 3 Lbs...my motivation is getting low ... I know it would take time to loose all the fat that has accumulated in years ... but still I need some tips ! Can you help me with that PLEASE :flowerforyou:
Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Easy Calorie Counting0 -
if you burn 1100 cals at the gym you should be eating your 1200 PLUS the 1100 you burned. 1200 already puts you at a deficit, and if you exercise and don't eat those calories back you're creating an even larger deficit- in your case a DANGEROUSLY large one. Think of it this way: you give your body 1200 calories to function on. You use 1100 of those working out. That leave 100 measely calories for your body to perform ALL other functions (ex- breathing, digestion, heartbeat, blinking, moving, talking, thinking, EVERYTHING). Yep, you eat back exercise calories. If you can't eat 2300 calories in a day, do less exercise.
this is ONE theory..there are others,,,,,read the archive posts, some eat them all and some do not
get several opinions
that's true, some people don't eat them ALL. But generally, those are not people that are already set at 1200 cals per day. TamTastic for instance doesn't eat all hers, but she does eat some. She has also stated on MANY occasions that she's never eaten as low as 1200. It makes a difference. a woman should never eat below 1200 cals a day whether she's exercising or not. Therefore, in my theory, your net calories should never fall below 1200 either. Let's say you were set at 1500 instead of 1200. So you eat 1500 and you excercise say 300 away. You're still at 1200, so I don't feel as strongly about the need to eat those back. Does that make sense? Also keep in mind the bigger you are (I'm talking about those in the obese range, as I used to be) can stand to eat fewer calories than someone say... in the healthy range. Because they have a lot of energy reserves (fat) to draw from. Otherwise yes, eat them back. There's no need to burn 1100 everyday but if you do you should eat those calories back.0 -
if you burn 1100 cals at the gym you should be eating your 1200 PLUS the 1100 you burned. 1200 already puts you at a deficit, and if you exercise and don't eat those calories back you're creating an even larger deficit- in your case a DANGEROUSLY large one. Think of it this way: you give your body 1200 calories to function on. You use 1100 of those working out. That leave 100 measely calories for your body to perform ALL other functions (ex- breathing, digestion, heartbeat, blinking, moving, talking, thinking, EVERYTHING). Yep, you eat back exercise calories. If you can't eat 2300 calories in a day, do less exercise.
I think that's the best explaination I've heard in a LONG time for this. Well done lady!0 -
Yeah even I liked your explaination - VERY CLEAR !
Also I would like to congratulate you on your high spirits and determination of loosing weight.
I have been here for 1 month now and have lost only about 3 Lbs...my motivation is getting low ... I know it would take time to loose all the fat that has accumulated in years ... but still I need some tips ! Can you help me with that PLEASE :flowerforyou:
Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Easy Calorie Counting
hi, if this is for me I must tell you 3 lbs in a m onth is NOT bad at all! I started out with more to lose than you (about 70lbs- the more you need to lose the faster it goes) and in my first month I believe I lost 4 lbs. So you see, you're ot doing badly at all, in fact you're doing very well! The trick is really to stick with it. Let's say you lose 3 lbs a month for the next 6 months. wow that's 18lbs gone! right? That's huge. And another 6 months, even more amazing! that'd be 36 lbs gone! Slow and steady, remember that :flowerforyou:0 -
if you burn 1100 cals at the gym you should be eating your 1200 PLUS the 1100 you burned. 1200 already puts you at a deficit, and if you exercise and don't eat those calories back you're creating an even larger deficit- in your case a DANGEROUSLY large one. Think of it this way: you give your body 1200 calories to function on. You use 1100 of those working out. That leave 100 measely calories for your body to perform ALL other functions (ex- breathing, digestion, heartbeat, blinking, moving, talking, thinking, EVERYTHING). Yep, you eat back exercise calories. If you can't eat 2300 calories in a day, do less exercise.
I think that's the best explaination I've heard in a LONG time for this. Well done lady!
:blushing: thanks Banks... er.... Boss :smooched:0 -
I don't eat all of mine if any of mine. I eat between 1200 and 1400 calories a day, depending on what my body feels like it needs. I think that there is a misconception on what your body uses in a day....yes your body does use a certain amount, but it does not take all of those cals used in a day from just what you eat that day......and starvation mode takes more than a day......
Get alot of information, read read read and decide what is best for you.
Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Calorie Counter0 -
Ditto and I havent had any plateaus....:drinker:I don't eat all of mine if any of mine. I eat between 1200 and 1400 calories a day, depending on what my body feels like it needs. I think that there is a misconception on what your body uses in a day....yes your body does use a certain amount, but it does not take all of those cals used in a day from just what you eat that day......and starvation mode takes more than a day......
Get alot of information, read read read and decide what is best for you.
Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Calorie Counter0 -
I actually started eating mine and my weight loss stopped... some days I eat them if I am hungry and some days I dont.
Ditto and I havent had any plateaus....:drinker:I don't eat all of mine if any of mine. I eat between 1200 and 1400 calories a day, depending on what my body feels like it needs. I think that there is a misconception on what your body uses in a day....yes your body does use a certain amount, but it does not take all of those cals used in a day from just what you eat that day......and starvation mode takes more than a day......
Get alot of information, read read read and decide what is best for you.
Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Calorie Counter0 -
i'm new to this site, and noticed lots of people talking about eating their "workout calories". what in the heck are they talking about? i work out a ton, and am on a 1200 cal diet. after i punch in my exercise, it says i have earned about 1100 extra calories, even after i punch in my food intake for the whole day. what does all this mean?
a lot of the replies (and thanks for them!) say to eat back all or some of the calories burned. my problem is, how do i eat an extra 1100 calories healthy? i don't intentionally burn 1200+ cals a day. i work out with home dvds about an hour a day, take a 30 minute walk with the stroller and 2 kids every day, about 20 mins of situps/pushups/etc, and about 30 mins with free weights. (at 5 lbs ea.) when i put in my housework, grocery shopping etc, is how i get to the 1200 cal mark.0 -
nuts,beans,fruit,veggies......if u choose to eat back any its important that u dont see the calories as a free for all to eat junk just cause u "earned" iti'm new to this site, and noticed lots of people talking about eating their "workout calories". what in the heck are they talking about? i work out a ton, and am on a 1200 cal diet. after i punch in my exercise, it says i have earned about 1100 extra calories, even after i punch in my food intake for the whole day. what does all this mean?
a lot of the replies (and thanks for them!) say to eat back all or some of the calories burned. my problem is, how do i eat an extra 1100 calories healthy? i don't intentionally burn 1200+ cals a day. i work out with home dvds about an hour a day, take a 30 minute walk with the stroller and 2 kids every day, about 20 mins of situps/pushups/etc, and about 30 mins with free weights. (at 5 lbs ea.) when i put in my housework, grocery shopping etc, is how i get to the 1200 cal mark.0 -
It is likely going to be a learning curve for you. Specific to your body. I would not follow any specific opinion. Unless you are following a doctors recommendation. Yes some here have eaten their exercise cals and yes some have not, some chose to eat partial cals. I personally did not in the beginning and was seeing alot saying I should...when I did I lost nothing. When I went back to eating just my alotment in a range of 1200-1400 I started losing again. I think you need to find what will work for you honestly. Try it out. What is 2-4 weeks of getting to know what works in the scheme of things?
Good luck.0 -
i'm new to this site, and noticed lots of people talking about eating their "workout calories". what in the heck are they talking about? i work out a ton, and am on a 1200 cal diet. after i punch in my exercise, it says i have earned about 1100 extra calories, even after i punch in my food intake for the whole day. what does all this mean?
a lot of the replies (and thanks for them!) say to eat back all or some of the calories burned. my problem is, how do i eat an extra 1100 calories healthy? i don't intentionally burn 1200+ cals a day. i work out with home dvds about an hour a day, take a 30 minute walk with the stroller and 2 kids every day, about 20 mins of situps/pushups/etc, and about 30 mins with free weights. (at 5 lbs ea.) when i put in my housework, grocery shopping etc, is how i get to the 1200 cal mark.
You may try just tracking true EXERCISE calories instead of including the daily activities like stroller, housework, grocery shoppong, etc. Most peolpe here track only the things that break a sweat! Do you use a hrm to accurately track those calories? I love mine!
0 -
So, instead of trying to explain it all. You know who jillian michaels is right?
the personal trainer from the Biggest loser.
Very well regarded in her field and very knowledgable about weight loss and nutrition.
about 23 minutes into her radio show this past sunday (you can listen to the whole thing, but it's 2 hours long). She goes over the exercise calorie debate with a woman. It's a long conversation but I think she hit all the points. I would advise you to listen as it's very insightful.
here is the link:
http://tinyurl.com/am4jfs0 -
if you burn 1100 cals at the gym you should be eating your 1200 PLUS the 1100 you burned. 1200 already puts you at a deficit, and if you exercise and don't eat those calories back you're creating an even larger deficit- in your case a DANGEROUSLY large one. Think of it this way: you give your body 1200 calories to function on. You use 1100 of those working out. That leave 100 measely calories for your body to perform ALL other functions (ex- breathing, digestion, heartbeat, blinking, moving, talking, thinking, EVERYTHING). Yep, you eat back exercise calories. If you can't eat 2300 calories in a day, do less exercise.
I respectfully disagree with this analysis. We cannot tell our body where to use the calories we eat.
If a person needs 1200 for normal body functions and they eat 1200 but also burn an extra 1100 with exercise, the body does not automatically take the eaten 1200 cals and apply it to the exercise and leave the body with only 100 for the normal body functions. The body will save itself first, always. Normal body requirements will be met even if the body has to eat muscle to do it.
So, a person who is 10 pounds overweight or 100 pounds overweight has additional fat stores to be used when a caloric deficit is presented. Prolonged deficits of too great a number will have a negative effect if the body is forced into starvation mode, but that is not the issue presented here.
The theory of eating ALL the exercise calories is for a life long program of a healthy lifestyle. It is not the only answer to the losing weight question.0 -
if you burn 1100 cals at the gym you should be eating your 1200 PLUS the 1100 you burned. 1200 already puts you at a deficit, and if you exercise and don't eat those calories back you're creating an even larger deficit- in your case a DANGEROUSLY large one. Think of it this way: you give your body 1200 calories to function on. You use 1100 of those working out. That leave 100 measely calories for your body to perform ALL other functions (ex- breathing, digestion, heartbeat, blinking, moving, talking, thinking, EVERYTHING). Yep, you eat back exercise calories. If you can't eat 2300 calories in a day, do less exercise.
I respectfully disagree with this analysis. We cannot tell our body where to use the calories we eat.
If a person needs 1200 for normal body functions and they eat 1200 but also burn an extra 1100 with exercise, the body does not automatically take the eaten 1200 cals and apply it to the exercise and leave the body with only 100 for the normal body functions. The body will save itself first, always. Normal body requirements will be met even if the body has to eat muscle to do it.
So, a person who is 10 pounds overweight or 100 pounds overweight has additional fat stores to be used when a caloric deficit is presented. Prolonged deficits of too great a number will have a negative effect if the body is forced into starvation mode, but that is not the issue presented here.
The theory of eating ALL the exercise calories is for a life long program of a healthy lifestyle. It is not the only answer to the losing weight question.
Actually, that's incorrect Dave, the body, will in fact, prioritize fuel to the areas that need it most. Muscles that are in dire need of fuel to refill their muscle glycogen stores will grab calories far faster then other body parts deemed less vital. This is in part due to the flight or fight mechanism built into our genes. This leaves the body scrambling for calories where it can get them, fat, and if no fat is readily available (which doesn't mean you don't have it, there are other reasons why it can be unavailable) also muscle. That's neither here nor there though.
The point she was getting at was this:
If you are at a deficit, and you increase the deficit, you now have a larger deficit. If that larger deficit triggers the body's famine response system, then two things happen, catabolic hormones are released in higher amounts (too high to be offset by the anabolic hormones which produce muscle) and muscle will be broken down and converted into sugar (essentially) and then into fat. Also, a larger percentage of the sugars eaten (and by that I mean, carbs, starches, fats, and sugars) are converted to adipose fat. Because less of the fuel being consumed is available, the body starts slowing down non-essential organs, basically an overall slowdown of the metabolism.
Now, not everyone's body has the same threshold, which is why for some you can have a bigger deficit then others, but the process is the same for all. What we (the "eat your exercise calories" crowd) are trying to promote on this site (and I think people are missing this point) isn't that we are trying to eliminate the deficit, but keep it at a smaller, maintainable rate. Because a smaller rate (while slower in loosing weight) is easier to maintain over long periods, and gives the body time to adjust to the changes happening to it.
One caveat to this is people who are in the obese category. Because of the amount of available stores, the body doesn't see recognize and interpret reduced caloric intake the same way, it doesn't trigger the famine response nearly as fast, and it also takes a far lower caloric intake to trigger it (which is why doctors can put morbidly obese patients on a highly controlled, 2 to 3 week Very low calorie diet when there is an immediate risk of death)
The problem is, some people calculate wrong, others have a lower then normal metabolic rate, and even others have enough fat store for the famine response to be muted or delayed all together.
I realize this is far more then most people want to read. But I just wanted to show that we just aren't making this stuff up. It's not opinion. The deficit may be questionable, but the theory behind it is solid and practiced by all four of the major Personal Training certification organizations in america (ACE, NASM, ISSA, and NCSA)0 -
Yet we stay alive.
..for instance- MFP gives options on the goals..you can pick one pound and have a 500 cal deficit or two pounds and have a 1000 cal deficit...so the person choosing one pound and working out for an extra 1000 cals has a 1500 cal deficit...if they only eat 500 back, then they in fact are operating at a 1000 cal deficit which is an option for weight loss on this site...so even this site does not actually require you to eat all the cals unless you are staying on your goal target.
I do not want a war on words here but depending on your goals to lose weight, it is not required to eat all the calories..I do eat mine and it is working but at the end of the dayand if I added 1000 exercise cals and I have 200 left over, I am not going to force myself to eat them because my deficit will only be 700 since I am on a 500 goal deficit.....
this whole topic confuses many new people and to say eating them all is the only way is not fair nor correct unless they are at the max deficit goal level to start with. We all simplify this topic but there are so many factors that go into the equation that giving this advice as if it is the only true answer is not fair not should we do it. I personally am in this for the long haul and am not looking to shed 10 in 10 or 30 in 30. Eating them all is good for the long haul. But for a quicker weight loss with proper nutrition, the deficit can be greater than 500 a day.0 -
To be fair, Dave, 'staying alive' isn't optimal when you have the option to totally change your body composition. Why would you want to lose fat and muscle just to lose weight faster, if you can increase or maintain your muscle mass while losing fat?
Starvation mode isn't about dying. It's about placing yourself in such a large deficit that you depress your metabolism and make it harder to lose fat.0 -
To be fair, Dave, 'staying alive' isn't optimal when you have the option to totally change your body composition. Why would you want to lose fat and muscle just to lose weight faster, if you can increase or maintain your muscle mass while losing fat?
Starvation mode isn't about dying. It's about placing yourself in such a large deficit that you depress your metabolism and make it harder to lose fat.
to be fair...where did I suggest a large deficit? nowhere0 -
To be fair, Dave, 'staying alive' isn't optimal when you have the option to totally change your body composition. Why would you want to lose fat and muscle just to lose weight faster, if you can increase or maintain your muscle mass while losing fat?
Starvation mode isn't about dying. It's about placing yourself in such a large deficit that you depress your metabolism and make it harder to lose fat.
to be fair...where did I suggest a large deficit? nowhere
Well, if we're discussing depressed metabolism, it's assumed that failing to eat exercise calories is placing the individual in a large deficit. If a male is eating 1300 calories a day and exercising 2 hours a day, there's a large deficit there. If a female is eating 1300 calories a day and is relatively sedentary, there won't be as large of a deficit.0 -
exactly...you havenow introduced factors that were not mentioned in the original discussion, which was my point
and Happy Birthday
the advice to eat them all needs all the factors not just a blanket statement
thanks0 -
exactly...you havenow introduced factors that were not mentioned in the original discussion, which was my point
and Happy Birthday
the advice to eat them all needs all the factors not just a blanket statement
thanks
Oh....well yea, I agree. But if the individual is working hard enough to burn 1100 calories in one gym session, that is a factor that would require eating at least half. That would put them in a 1,000 calorie deficit, with wiggle room of +-500 calories to still be able to lose 1 lb per week.
Oh and thanks :happy:0 -
exactly...you havenow introduced factors that were not mentioned in the original discussion, which was my point
and Happy Birthday
the advice to eat them all needs all the factors not just a blanket statement
thanks
Oh....well yea, I agree. But if the individual is working hard enough to burn 1100 calories in one gym session, that is a factor that would require eating at least half. That would put them in a 1,000 calorie deficit, with wiggle room of +-500 calories to still be able to lose 1 lb per week.
Oh and thanks :happy:
half...sure..but she was told with no wiggle room to eat them all...my point is that is confusing to new people who need more info than blanket statements...they need to understand all the factors and not be just told to eat em0 -
the beauty of this site is that so many different ideas and opinions can be and are expressed.....i def. eat my workout calories...plus a few extra some days....i am not noticing big pound losses, but am noticing that my clothes keep getting bigger...i suspect most of us who have a lot to lose have messed up our metabolisms in the past...i believe that since i have joined this site and chosen the option of eating those workout calories that my metabolism is getting back to what it should be...i know i have a lot more energy...i appreciate all the work people put into this site and into their thoughts and opinions and questions and answers...blessings to each one of you on this journey...0
-
Look, I think that we're all in agreement and this is a disagreement about how we express it.
I think that most people understand that you need a calorie deficit to lose fat. I also think that most people agree that if your deficit is too large your body triggers the famine response (starvation mode) which makes losing weight and gaining muscle very difficult.
The way you get to that deficit isn't a point of contention to me. If someone wants to eat less, then workout, and then eat back the exercise calories to maintain that deficit, that's fine.
If someone else wants to eat a little more, and then workout to expand the deficit, that's fine by me too.
I don't care how the deficit is created, nor does the body. And maybe that's where people get confused.
when we say Eat your exercise calories, the only reason we say it is because (maybe wrongly) we assume that you have already put in your goal deficit, and that by not eating your exercise calories, you're actually increasing it more then you probably should. If you think that increasing it will still keep you within a safe deficit, then great, we're not talking about your specific case.
My biggest thing is for everyone to know about where their deficit SHOULD be. Some of that is through research about their own body numbers, some is through a little trial and error.
I'll tell you one thing though, I'd rather have this discussion, and have people disagree, then not have it talked about it at all. At least this way people are sparked to do the research and really think about the process.
Anyway, this has been a civil discussion, and I think productive.0 -
Do you own a Heart Rate Monitor? As far as your exercise don't count your daily activity (which is what you do daily anyway and you were still lugging around the extra weight that your now trying to lose) Only count exercise nothing else
I walk constantly and always take the stairs I don't count that as my exercise (because I still had 20-25lbs to lose)- I run and play with my kids - thats not exercise, and unless your running laps around the grocery store that isn't exercise either.
The dvds and crunches yes, strolls with the kids, shopping, housework, ect not exercise
Remember the calorie counter is just an estimate its either high or low- The best thing is a HRM if you can afford it cause then you actually know what your burning and you will know when your heart rate is up and in the ZONE to burn calories.0 -
So, instead of trying to explain it all. You know who jillian michaels is right?
the personal trainer from the Biggest loser.
Very well regarded in her field and very knowledgable about weight loss and nutrition.
about 23 minutes into her radio show this past sunday (you can listen to the whole thing, but it's 2 hours long). She goes over the exercise calorie debate with a woman. It's a long conversation but I think she hit all the points. I would advise you to listen as it's very insightful.
here is the link:
http://tinyurl.com/am4jfs
I just listened to it- and she was talking about the lady who isn't big and who doesn't have alot to lose 10-15lbs who also doesn't have alot of fat reserve and started eating 1100-1300 calories a day then cut them down to 800 calories.
She said if someone were morbidly obese she could put them on 800 calories a day and train them 8 hours a day because they have 300lbs of stored fuel on there body.
and to not ever go below 1200 calories because the lady was eating only 800 calories a day.
and she said for the lady to gradually increase her calorie intake to 1600 and to stay at that 1600 a day FOREVER--
She not once mentioned eating exercise calories.
She even told a man that was eating 1600 calories a day and working out everyday was fine and that he doesn't need to eat anymore because he has alot of weight to lose-She mentioned to him that she sets the guys on biggest loser on 1600 calories a day and works them out 6-8 hours a day.
She also mentioned that if it was like 20-25lbs she would tweak it a little.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions