eating the calories you burn off

You need to eat those back, because the original calorie goal is based on if you don't work out. Your body will thank you and the weight will STILL come off by eating the calories back. Its healthier.

EDIT: What he said, lol

Here are some helpful links:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/390145-should-i-eat-my-exercise-calories

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/390147-what-are-net-calories

I wasn't eating mine back and my weight loss stalled out because your body needs fuel for you to function. If you work out and burn more you need more fuel if you don't eat enough your body can start to think its going to starve and stop losing. I don't eat all mine back but I do try to eat some of them back I just listen to my body and eat more when I am hungry. I do make sure at least once a week I eat them all back or almost all of them leaving 50 or less.

My opinion on this differs from the popular opinion on this board. If you feel like you're getting enough food and nutrition without eating back your exercise calories, there's no need to eat them back. If you're burning 800 calories in exercise a day and starving all the time, that's another story.. but for a lot of people, eating back your exercise calories is just an excuse to eat more. Not necessary.

Not a healthy view of fueling your body at all. View the food as fuel, if you burn more fuel, you need to fill the tank of you will run out.

Hey honey. My online research says your body needs energy of whatever the calorie intake limit is you're given. So let's say you are allowed 1400 calories a day, you really should eat the full 1400. If you exercise and burn off that energy, your body needs to get it back so eat whatever you burn off. More calories does not = more fat if you are exercising. It's like a balance scale, you have to keep both sides of intake and output as equal as possible. It'll also stop you from getting hungry and eating more bad foods.

I'm with Kate on this. I eat them back sometimes, but only if I'm hungry. Sometimes, I'll up my portions or have snacks the day following a low-calorie day, but again, only if I'm hungry.

See, I'm trying to re-train my mind/body connection to better tell the hunger that means my body needs fuel from the hunger that means I'm bored or want some tasty stimulation. I can;t get a grip on that if I'm eating when I'm NOT hungry.

This is what works for me. It may not work for anybody else.

There are a few reasons.
1. You set a weekly weight loss goal MFP gave you calories to meet that goal assuming no exercise, once you exercise you have to eat those back to ensure your deficit is so that you lose your goal amount of weight.
2. If your deficit is too large you will lose a higher % of lean muscle and less fat, lowering your metabolism and making it easier to gain weight.

Since you don't have a lot to lose it is even more important as your deficit could be smaller and you still burn muscle vs. someone that has a lot to lose.

Look at it this way. If you eat 1200 and burn 500 from exercise, is the same as eating 700 and not exercising. (1200-500) and 700 is not enough fuel for your body to function properly.

As an example your day to day requirements are like a tank of gas. if you use a tank of gas/week going to and from work, if you go on any extra trips or errands you will need to add more gas in order to have enough gas to get to work. So if you need 1200 for day to day stuff (you will lose weight with 1200 cals and no exercise), then when you do extra (workout) you need to put more calories in your body.

The benefits of exercise are not necessary to lose weight, that comes from a caloric deficit regardless how you get there. the benefits of exercise are to ensure you lose less muscle as you lose weight, make you healthier, and help you avoid being skinny fat (thin, but at a high % body fat)

Great explanation!

After all the debate on here, I talked with both my doctor and nutritionist. Both said that it is not necessary to eat them back. I do not eat mine.

This is probably because they factor in exercise calories to your daily intake and are not aware of how MFP works:

Not eating them back is only a good idea if you increase your activity level to account for your exercise. changing your activity level will give you more calories so you will be eating enough, without the thought of "eating your exercise calories". (change from sedentary to active or very active)

Essentially this would have you are set your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) then creating a deficit from that to lose weight. This is what most trainer/doctors/nutritionists do. Most professionals will tell you not to eat your exercise calories back because they added it into your TDEE, whereas MFP ignores exercise and only accounts for it when you perform it. Either way should get you to the same place.

As an example say MFP gives you 1450 calories to lose 1 lb/week, and you plan on exercising 5x/week for an average of 400 cals per workout. well MFP will tell you to eat 1450 on the days you don't workout and 1850 on the days you do whereas a "professional" may tell you to eat 1750 everyday regardless if you workout.

So for the week MFP will have you eat 12,150 (1450*2+1850*5) whereas doing it the other way will have you eat 12,250 (1750*7) almost the same number of cals for the week. The issue in not following MFP is if you don't workout the full 5 days or burn more or less than planned. If that is the case you may lose more or less than your goal using TDEE, whereas MFP will have you lose your goal amount regardless how much you actually workout.

What many MFPers do is take the low 1450 and not eat back exercise calories which is wrong, if you are not eating them back then your daily activity level should reflect the higher burn with would be covered in the 1750/day above.

I don't like to think of it as eating the exercise calories back. I just see it as being able to eat more, the more I exercise. Many people don't consider their BMR, which is the calories you already burn just by doing nothing. So mine is about 1668. If I exercise and burn 300 more calories, my total burned comes to 1968. If I eat the basic 1200, I'll have a deficit of 768, which would lead me to lose weight a little faster I guess. But if I choose to "eat back" or have an extra 300 calories that day, I my deficit will be lower (468), but I'll still lose. It just depends on your goal.

Also, here is a long post of people pals are discussing their results from eating them back -

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/395881-people-who-lost-weight-eating-more

I don't like to think of it as eating the exercise calories back. I just see it as being able to eat more, the more I exercise. Many people don't consider their BMR, which is the calories you already burn just by doing nothing. So mine is about 1668. If I exercise and burn 300 more calories, my total burned comes to 1968. If I eat the basic 1200, I'll have a deficit of 768, which would lead me to lose weight a little faster I guess. But if I choose to "eat back" or have an extra 300 calories that day, I my deficit will be lower (468), but I'll still lose. It just depends on your goal.

Yes, the issue really gets bad if you burn 500-1000 cals and you only have a little bit of weight to lose. If your deficit is too large and you don't have a lot of fat stores your body will break down muscle to use as fuel and to lower your BMR so that your fat stores last longer (survival reasons)

I was told that if you are trying to lose a serious amount of weight you do not eat them back.... but if you are trying to maintain your weight you would need to eat those calories back!!

actually eating them back will not cause you to maintain your weight as the calories MFP gives you are already to lose weight, so eating them back will just cause you to lose your goal amount of weight, and it was your goal for a reason.

It seems almost impossible to eat all your calories back and i would feel like im over eating... I understand that MFP automatically counts a deficit but if i eat 1200 calories and then burn 800 your telling me i would have to eat 800 MORE CALORIES?!???

I do cuz Im also training for a marathon - there's no way you can get any decent amount of mileage in if you're eating 1200 cals a day!

I was told that if you are trying to lose a serious amount of weight you do not eat them back.... but if you are trying to maintain your weight you would need to eat those calories back!!

actually eating them back will not cause you to maintain your weight as the calories MFP gives you are already to lose weight, so eating them back will just cause you to lose your goal amount of weight, and it was your goal for a reason.

It seems almost impossible to eat all your calories back and i would feel like im over eating... I understand that MFP automatically counts a deficit but if i eat 1200 calories and then burn 800 your telling me i would have to eat 800 MORE CALORIES?!???

Damn 20 miles a day.... how many of the exercise calories do you eat back then?

My opinion on this differs from the popular opinion on this board. If you feel like you're getting enough food and nutrition without eating back your exercise calories, there's no need to eat them back. If you're burning 800 calories in exercise a day and starving all the time, that's another story.. but for a lot of people, eating back your exercise calories is just an excuse to eat more. Not necessary.

Not a healthy view of fueling your body at all. View the food as fuel, if you burn more fuel, you need to fill the tank of you will run out.

Your body has fat stores for fuel. It burns them when it runs out of calories from outside sources. Hence, we lose weight when we create a calorie deficit. As long as you are getting your required nutrients and enough calories to cover your BMR plus average daily activity, you will be absolutely fine. Ask a doc.

yes and the amount you need is a Net amount. If you eat 1600 and your BMR is 1500 that is irrelevant if you burn 2000 from exercise as you would be in a negative net calorie situation. Net calories are what matters, not total caloric intake.

I have days where my net calories are negative. I don't recommend that for anyone, of course. But in my case if I'm training for a marathon and running 20 miles on a given day, your theory would require me to eat 3500 calories that day just to stay out of the red in net calories. 3500 calories in a day is in no way feasible for me. As a general rule, I think people who exercise regularly should take in more calories than those who don't, but I think a concrete, "always eat back your calories" approach just isn't necessary.