Eating back exercise calories?
Options
Replies
-
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.3 -
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.1 -
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.0 -
wilson10102018 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.
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.
Well, if you want to move to a small village where you walk two miles daily back and forth to the local butcher and fishmonger and baker, be my guest. My location and job (building 3D models for video games) don’t naturally lead my every day activities to support a healthy body, and I shop at a supermarket.
Not too long ago I read an article about a tribe in (I think) the Amazon somewhere that has perfect hearts, even as elderly people, and also walks about 30k steps per day. That’s not me, and I suspect it’s not you either.
Incidentally your second paragraph repeats a falsehood. Studies have found runners have less incidence of osteoporosis and fewer knee troubles than non-runners.11 -
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.4 -
wunderkindking wrote: »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.
Yeah, if we're talking about getting fitness benefits from "play," it seems like we should acknowledge that for some people, activities like running, biking, and swimming are genuinely fun and we do these things because they bring us joy.5 -
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.2 -
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.0 -
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.3
-
-
wilson10102018 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.
There's a difference between exercising to eat more and eating more, panicking because you ate more, and then trying to exercise it off.
That's the difference in mindset.10 -
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.
Why do you feel the need for that extra deficit? You picked the 1.5 lbs for a reason. Now you're just potentially undereating and that brings its own set of problems.7 -
I'm an approximate logger. I also exercise almost daily, adding 500-1000kcals per day. My only observation is that the exercise calorie estimates are not that accurate across the board. Things walking and running are pretty well handled by a fitness watch, but cycling, swimming, kayaking, paddle-boarding, inline skating, lawnmowing, snow blowing, and many other activities are very difficult to assess.
So, if you are intent on cutting, you might be a little conservative in eating calories back. It's not terrible to leave a few "on the table" (or in the fridge).0 -
wilson10102018 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.
There's a difference between exercising to eat more and eating more, panicking because you ate more, and then trying to exercise it off.
That's the difference in mindset.
Uh, do you really see a difference in those two scenarios? How about if you lose the two gratuitous modifiers: (i) panicking, which has nothing to do with the issue, and (ii) "trying" as opposed to just doing it. Neither modifier is anywhere near what I posted or what the discussion mandated.
That leaves you with seeing a difference in exercising to eat more, which I hope everyone sees as an unhealthy mindset, and eating more and then exercising to try for it not to increase one's weight.
I guess it boils down to whether you would exercise before or after dinner?1 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »wilson10102018 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.
There's a difference between exercising to eat more and eating more, panicking because you ate more, and then trying to exercise it off.
That's the difference in mindset.
Uh, do you really see a difference in those two scenarios? How about if you lose the two gratuitous modifiers: (i) panicking, which has nothing to do with the issue, and (ii) "trying" as opposed to just doing it. Neither modifier is anywhere near what I posted or what the discussion mandated.
That leaves you with seeing a difference in exercising to eat more, which I hope everyone sees as an unhealthy mindset, and eating more and then exercising to try for it not to increase one's weight.
I guess it boils down to whether you would exercise before or after dinner?
I do see a difference and I've been known to exercise DURING dinner (to save on time) so there ya go.6 -
The question about "eat to exercise" or "exercise to eat" is a good one. I guessing that big exercisers do a little of both.
There are tradeoffs to any lifestyle and a person has to regularly re-assess if their choices are really working for them and not against them. I've had people ask me how I have the time to do the modest training that I choose to do. My wife is sometimes exasperated with me when I tell her I want to do a 2 hour bike ride, but not with her!
I think that people (like me) who watch their weight and are in the habit of doing regular 500-1000kcal workouts do struggle when we miss a workout (or, worse, a week or more due to injury, illness, or travel). I like to anticipate the average and smooth out the eating as much as possible. If I miss a planned 1000kcal workout, I need to compensate by eating less for a day or two, and I think we have all experienced how hard that is!0 -
wilson10102018 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.
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.
You know what happens when a jogger has a “debilitating” injury as defined by the study you linked? (Example injuries include blisters and iliotibial band irritation.)
That jogger temporarily is forced to become a non-jogger.
That’s it. Nothing else happens. The runner is just unable to run for a while until the overuse injury resolves. They have to suck it up for a while and become like normal people.
It is certainly true that one way to avoid overuse injuries is never to use your body. However, underuse injuries such as diabetes, fatty liver, and heart attacks are worse than having a blown Achilles’ tendon.
Regular exercise is the largest single shared factor among people who are on the weight loss registry studying people who have maintained a significant loss for more than a year. It’s the single most significant controllable factor in health, according to multiple studies.7 -
May I also take a moment to address the (dumb) argument that exercise causes injuries at some rate high enough not to offset the benefits of exercising?
The best way to prevent injury from activity is proper conditioning.
You know what that means?
It means you build stamina, strength, and proper muscle to support the activity you are doing.
You know who at least a good portion of those injury stats are coming from? People who don't do that, don't cross train, and/or do not have the base fitness level and then go way too hard, way too fast, without proper knowledge of safety or skill.
9 -
As a non-jogger, I am fine to not have the injuries that send the average jogger to the doctor or missed work 2 times per year, and I get no Schadenfreude from my contemporaries who are almost universally getting knee and hip replacements. But those who think that the issue is settled are just deluded. As a libertarian, I welcome persons making their own decisions to do things which give them satisfaction even when they are not sensible in the public health context. Exercise to achieving cardio improvement levels is helpful for cardio recovery patients. An exercise bike or a treadmill is probably the safest, least destructive way to accomplish that. But, that is about it.0
-
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »The question about "eat to exercise" or "exercise to eat" is a good one. I guessing that big exercisers do a little of both.
There are tradeoffs to any lifestyle and a person has to regularly re-assess if their choices are really working for them and not against them. I've had people ask me how I have the time to do the modest training that I choose to do. My wife is sometimes exasperated with me when I tell her I want to do a 2 hour bike ride, but not with her!
I think that people (like me) who watch their weight and are in the habit of doing regular 500-1000kcal workouts do struggle when we miss a workout (or, worse, a week or more due to injury, illness, or travel). I like to anticipate the average and smooth out the eating as much as possible. If I miss a planned 1000kcal workout, I need to compensate by eating less for a day or two, and I think we have all experienced how hard that is!
Personally, my answer to this is "find an enjoyable life" and "eat to fuel it" . . . since I'm fortunate enough that I have choices of lifestyle (vs. struggling, maybe abusing my body physically at work, just to stay alive) and am fortunate enough to have food surplus as my challenge rather than food shortage.
Exercise is just one way to have fun. It has benefits other than fun. And some risks, sure.
*Not* getting any activity is life is also injurious . . . I see quite a few folks in doctors' offices who appear to have pursued something closer to that route, and know quite a few people my age who are very inactive, and need more doctoring more often than I do as a consistent exerciser.
If someone doesn't want to exercise, that's their choice. Whether that's a health-increasing or heath-depleting choice is quite situational.
P.S. I can't say that I struggle if I miss a workout, though 500+ calorie activity days aren't unusual for me. I like eating more, more than I like eating less, but I'm capable of eating less when necessary, without much drama. I admit, I don't have many 1000+ calorie exercise days, but I'm not a large human, which is part of that.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K 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
- 391 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
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions