Eating back exercise calories?

cheshirechic
cheshirechic Posts: 489 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Do you eat back your exercise calories? Why/why not?

There are probably thousands of threads on this but I couldn't find them.

For me, rn, I'm not. I usually burn (it's all an approximation anyway) 400 extra. Eating 1400 rn, without adding those back.

Thanks! <3
«1

Replies

  • Lietchi
    Lietchi Posts: 6,839 Member
    I eat every extra calorie my (Garmin) fitness tracker gives me, because I know (after months of tracking) that it's pretty reliable for me and I've lost weight as intended.
    If anything, my Garmin underestimates my calorie burns slightly, although I'm not sure if that's specifically exercise-related or a general underestimation (I do know my runs burn more calories than my Garmin says, based on a calculator I use).
  • MsCzar
    MsCzar Posts: 1,071 Member
    I don't. But I burn only about 330 calories during my daily 30 minute workouts and eat about 1200-1400 calories when in deficit. 80lbs/36kg down with about 20lbs/9kg to go.
  • rheddmobile
    rheddmobile Posts: 6,840 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Of course I eat them.

    I'm maintaining my weight now (have been for 5+ years, with a bit of up and down within that healthy range). If I didn't eat back my exercise calories, I'd lose weight, and that would be a really dumb thing to do when I'm at BMI 20-point-something (around 125 pounds at 5'5", which is a good weight, on the lighter side, for me).

    I ate back exercise calories while losing, too, because:

    (1) it was good practice for maintaining - I used weight loss to practice quite a few skills I'd need to stay at a healthy weight long term. (I'd been overweight/obese for around 30 years before that, and that needed to be *over*, permanently.) Estimating exercise calories is a skill I need in maintenance.
    (2) I value my exercise performance, including the strength that's useful in daily life, and the appearance benefits of properly fueled exercise for body composition (muscle/fat ratios).

    In one sense, exercise calories aren't special. They're not a different type of calories from tooth-brushing calories or car-driving calories. On MFP, we're encouraged to account for them separately because they're more variable than daily life calorie burn for most of us, and it teaches the useful lesson that when we move more, we ought to eat more . . . or move less, eat less.

    If someone has a pretty-slow weight loss rate target (say, half a pound a week), and doesn't do much exercise (hundred or two calories, maybe, perhaps 3 days a week), it's probably fine to let them increase deficit (make weight loss faster). If someone's already targeting an aggressive loss rate, like 2 pounds a week, then does hundreds of calories of exercise daily, that's a Bad Plan, IMO. In between, it's a question of how much health risk a person wants to take on.

    Fast loss increases health risks, and can make the process unsustainable. Losing any meaningful amount of weight is a long-term process, and sustainability matters to reaching goal.

    Besides, exercise calories taste the best. 😉

    There’s a good point made here - accounting for and eating back your exercise calories is good training for those inevitable times when you are injured, change jobs, or are otherwise unable to be active, and need to reduce your calories accordingly. Lots of runners in particular gain weight when injured because they get used to maintaining at a certain level and don’t think of it as connected to their running.
  • rosebarnalice
    rosebarnalice Posts: 3,488 Member
    I eat back about half. Some days I don't eat any, others I eat back every one. But in the long run it's about half.
  • wilson10102018
    wilson10102018 Posts: 1,306 Member
    Exercise to support eating. Doesn't seem that healthy to me.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,988 Member
    cheshirechic wrote: »
    Do you eat back your exercise calories? Why/why not?

    There are probably thousands of threads on this but I couldn't find them.

    For me, rn, I'm not. I usually burn (it's all an approximation anyway) 400 extra. Eating 1400 rn, without adding those back.

    Thanks! <3
    So then your NET calorie intake is 1000.............................which can be nutritional difficient and force your metabolic rate to lower at rest........which is where you burn the most bodyfat.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png

  • swimmchick87
    swimmchick87 Posts: 458 Member
    I think you have to see what works for you as far as how accurate the exercise calories are- i.e. if you eat them all back, do you still lose as expected? A lot of people overestimate what they burn and underestimate what they eat, which can lead to issues if you regularly eat them all back. The only exercise I do is walking and I know my fitbit way overestimates calories. I use my exercise calories as a cushion if needed but I would never eat all of them, because at least for me it's not accurate. I usually will allow myself to go over my regular calorie goal by maybe 50-100 calories as long as I've done my walking that day. I also have my goal set to lose 1 pound per week and therefore get a higher daily calorie goal to begin with, so if I'm accidentally off in the other direction I don't really need to worry about undereating either. Most days I eat around 1600 calories.
  • wilson10102018
    wilson10102018 Posts: 1,306 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    wilson10102018 wrote: »
    Exercise to support eating. Doesn't seem that healthy to me.

    Eating to support exercise is a very healthy mindset.

    Exercise to support eating is a very unhealthy mindset.
  • autobahn66
    autobahn66 Posts: 59 Member
    rheddmobile wrote: »
    wilson10102018 wrote: »
    Exercise to support eating. Doesn't seem that healthy to me.

    It is, though. Regular exercise is the single most healthy thing you can do for yourself, and if eating more food motivates you to do it, that’s fine. Eating more and exercising enough to maintain at that calorie level is far healthier than being sedentary and eating less to maintain at that activity level.

    I substantially agree with this.

    The only caveats I would have is that it can be really challenging to shift dietary habits, and it can be really difficult to always sustain exercise for some people.

    I am troubled by gout, which, when it flares and makes exercise essentially impossible for between 3-7 days due to pain (also apparently increased risk of injury).

    So while doing an exact amount of exercise and eating back to that limit is fine when the situation is stable, I know that if I am in the habit of assuming that I will be able to eat back the calories indefinitely I know I'll hungry some days when I'm not able to exercise, or putting on weight when I'm not exercising.

    As I'm trying to lose weight at the moment I don't want my inevitable off days to completely destroy my progress, so I'm viewing 50% of my exercise calories as an insurance against having to take a week off later!

    But as you noted: overall activity is paramount. Ideal includes a both activity and weight control, but if it has to be one, activity is the key.
  • wunderkindking
    wunderkindking Posts: 1,615 Member
    autobahn66 wrote: »
    rheddmobile wrote: »
    wilson10102018 wrote: »
    Exercise to support eating. Doesn't seem that healthy to me.

    It is, though. Regular exercise is the single most healthy thing you can do for yourself, and if eating more food motivates you to do it, that’s fine. Eating more and exercising enough to maintain at that calorie level is far healthier than being sedentary and eating less to maintain at that activity level.

    I substantially agree with this.

    The only caveats I would have is that it can be really challenging to shift dietary habits, and it can be really difficult to always sustain exercise for some people.

    I am troubled by gout, which, when it flares and makes exercise essentially impossible for between 3-7 days due to pain (also apparently increased risk of injury).

    So while doing an exact amount of exercise and eating back to that limit is fine when the situation is stable, I know that if I am in the habit of assuming that I will be able to eat back the calories indefinitely I know I'll hungry some days when I'm not able to exercise, or putting on weight when I'm not exercising.

    As I'm trying to lose weight at the moment I don't want my inevitable off days to completely destroy my progress, so I'm viewing 50% of my exercise calories as an insurance against having to take a week off later!

    But as you noted: overall activity is paramount. Ideal includes a both activity and weight control, but if it has to be one, activity is the key.

    This really can go both ways, too, and is fair.

    I gave myself an avulsion fracture in my ankle early this month.

    I said 'okay', decided to eat at maintenance instead of my small deficit and set my activity to sedentary because, well, broken ankle and that meant less activity.

    Nope.

    I kept dropping weight.

    Some of this is 'the scale is a lagging indicator of habits/lifestyle'. Some of it is that I had no idea HOW LOW the threshold for sedentary was. Apparently just limping around daily life even with a desk job is above it.

    OTOH, worth realizing that when you're actively trying to lose, your cushion is your deficit and if you're really injured you dont' want an aggressive deficit, anyway. Your deficit was probably bigger than most people's daily calorie burn through exercise. So you're not going to go backward if you keep tracking and paying attention. At most it's going to slow or you're going to pause the process by eating about what you were.

    In maintenance when you're used to eating to maintain your weight WITH exercise in calories in there different story.

    But that deficit will usually give you plenty of room to eat more without active gain while injured, as long as you're aware and keep tracking/watching, and get some practice at maintenance.
  • Athijade
    Athijade Posts: 3,300 Member
    I eat back a percentage because I don't fully trust the calculations from MFP for exercise.

    Also, I try to listen to my body. So some days I may not eat back any of my exercise calories and others I may eat all of them. But I would say it averages out to eating back about 50%. I do know though that if I never ate my exercise calories, I would end up stabbing people in hunger and I would not be taking care of my body properly.
  • Jagged82
    Jagged82 Posts: 4 Member
    I don't normally eat back my calories. Partially because it's all a bit or art, none of the calculations are 100% accurate.

    That said, I've read some pretty scary posts on mfp about risks of going too low (1200 and less) and exercise which made me up my cal intake (i stick to around 1650 as 160lbs guy) but if in maintenance mode or low deficit I feel good and not constantly hungry. So as result I don't try to eat back my daily 300-400 cals (light exercise) and am able maintain healthy appetite.

    Of course, last bit is nutrition.. probably eating balanced (or Mediterranean) helps make this happen, I'm sure I'd be miserable if I ate all my calories in a high carbohydrates diet.
  • wilson10102018
    wilson10102018 Posts: 1,306 Member
    rheddmobile wrote: »
    wilson10102018 wrote: »
    Exercise to support eating. Doesn't seem that healthy to me.

    It is, though. Regular exercise is the single most healthy thing you can do for yourself, and if eating more food motivates you to do it, that’s fine. Eating more and exercising enough to maintain at that calorie level is far healthier than being sedentary and eating less to maintain at that activity level.

    This is a platitude that is rarely challenged. Why, I do not know. Most of the healthy populations of the World do exactly ZERO exercise. And, these are not populations of farmers and hunter/gatherers. They are civilized societies of persons who get enough exercise to keep limber and mobile by their every day activities of personal care, work, shopping and play. Of course shut-ins and recovery patients and truly sedentary persons need structured exercise, but that is about it.

    When one considers that the average jogger has two debilitating injuries per year on average, and intense exercise almost always results in joint replacements and other orthopedic failures, it is hard to agree with the statement above. Genetically, we are not well equipped for intense exercise. But, then we don't really need it.
  • wunderkindking
    wunderkindking Posts: 1,615 Member
    edited July 2021
    I mean everything above but also just... dude, I exercise because it improves my quality of life in a lot of ways, and not just physical health or being able to eat more and still manage my life.

    I've got one life. I'd like to live it, thanks.

    Even if it had ZERO benefits to my physical health (and it does) I'd still do the things I do. Because those things I do that are 'exercise are not me doing things I don't enjoy. They're me doing things I love to do and add immeasurably to my general life satisfaction. Ie: THEY ARE FUN. Kinda like, yeah, me eating the cake might not be optimization of my health, but cake is delicious and I like cake so I'm going to eat some.

    And quite aside from that I didn't break my ankle doing exercise. I broke it tripping over a tree root walking to my car.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,224 Member
    What really matters, IMO, isn't "eating back exercise calories" vs. "not eating back exercise calories".

    What really matters is actual weight loss rate, averaged over weeks.

    Losing too fast increases health risks, can make the effort too difficult to sustain consistently and long enough to lose a meaningful amount of weight (let alone keep it off permanently).

    Losing too slowly can be frustrating, and in the case of someone whose weight in itself created health risk, slow loss fails to mitigate that weight-related risk quickly enough.

    What's "too fast" or "too slowly"? That's somewhat individual, though there are some common rule of thumb guardrails, beyond which there's probably a problem waiting to happen, if not already happening. Loosely speaking, that problem is likely to come in the form of health problems, or appetite (compliance) problems.

    How one accounts for exercise calories (or tooth-brushing calories, for that matter) is just a tactic. (Calorie counting isn't even the only way to lose weight, after all.) Loss rate is the main deal, no matter the methods.

    I wonder if people who say "I don't lose if I eat back exercise" or "exercise calories are overestimated so I don't eat them" realize that the base calorie goal from a calculator (MFP or others) or even a fitness tracker can be inaccurate. Effectively, it's a population average, tweaked based on demographic details, but we're each individuals.

    Most people are close to the averages. The common range of BMR/RMR - the basis for the estimates - is narrow, with about 68% of people within about 5-8% of the average.** Activity levels multiply BMR/RMR, so increase the absolute numeric value of the BMR/RMR.

    If we take some rough but not unreasonable number for a ballpark example, like 2000 calories, as an average daily calorie requirement, that would put 68% of individuals in about the 1840-2160 range. That's a mere 320 calories difference. Looking at realistic exercise calorie estimates for average people doing average amounts of exercise, that swing of 320 calories in base needs is going to be around the same magnitude as an average exercise session, maybe even a little larger.

    Hmmm.

    ** Source of all the data: https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/

    Lots of other interesting info in the article, which is from an evidence-based site generally regarded as neutral and pretty well-informed.
  • PepeLPew
    PepeLPew Posts: 92 Member
    I usually eat my total caloric allotment in a day (at a deficit) and then I am in a double deficit after I do my biking. I will eat back calories when I feel hungry, but I keep in mind not to eat right back to my original deficit. When I eat them some of them back, I will use fruit, vegetables or something with protein and fiber. I never eat them all back -

    I keep in mind that exercise will stimulate hunger but not necessarily mean it's there. I also drink 2L of water to make sure I'm not dehydrated and masking for hunger.

    I've done this for the past 4 months and will lose around a pound more than my 1.5 pound weekly weight loss goal.
  • HoneyBadger302
    HoneyBadger302 Posts: 2,070 Member
    I use a TDEE calculation as varying my intake day by day makes my appetite nearly uncontrollable - a steady, predictable intake over time is far more sustaining in my case. So, technically I "eat back" exercise calories - averaged out over a week.
  • wilson10102018
    wilson10102018 Posts: 1,306 Member
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4338213/

Categories