New at this - a little help please with calories, etc.

Hi and welcome,

There are many conflicting OPINIONS out there on whether or not you should eat back your exercise calories. There's a search option up above (>home, >recent posts, >My Topics, > Settings, >SEARCH). Type in "eating back exercise calories" and you will find MILES of threads.

In a nutshell: MFP sets up your daily calorie goals with a weight-loss deficit BUILT-IN. If you eat less than this your logic is telling you you'll lose weight faster, but try to temper this logic with the idea that your body requires a minimum # of calories a day to maintain your basic needs and good, nutritious laden food is needed to supply that. If you exercise, again, you are burning more calories and you may be at a greater calorie deficit than is healthy for your body's needs.

Good luck, happy eating and welcome to MFP!

For the past two days I have read the major threads about this because I didn't know what to do. I have come to the conclusion that on days I don't exercise I try to eat around 1500. (I'm 5' 11 250lbs) And on days I exercise I will eat a little more because I am usually a bit more hungry. I have also read that if you only have a little to lose (unlike me) you should eat back at least half of your exercise calories. But if you are like me and have a lot to lose you should not dip into the exercise calories that much. You really must listen to your body. Everyone is different and you have to find what works for you, this is purely my opinion I am no expert but have been successful at weight loss. Before mfp lost 40 lbs and now have started mfp and have lost 6 pounds.

When you set up MFP, it figures out how much your body needs to survive, then takes into account how active you are (you chose that). This is based only on what you do day to day, it does NOT include exercise. It uses this to figure out how many calories you need to maintain your weight. Then you selected your weight loss per week goal. It then subtracted how many calories you need to cut back on in order to get that goal per week.
So lets say you need 2000 calories to maintain and you select 1 lb per week. It will take away 500 calories ( 7 days x 500 calories = 3500 calories or 1lb). So MFP will tell you to eat 1500 calories per day. So there is no need to eat less than MFP suggests, they have already taken away calories.
Now, if you go and exercise, MFP has not accounted for that, so it tells you to eat them.

One thing that often causes confusion in this matter is that when you go to a nutritionist or a trainer or someone like that and they give you a calorie goal, they use a different forumula. They account for everything, including how much exercise you plan to do per week, so they will often say not to eat back exercise calories. People will quote them on here. But the reason is they have used a different formula than MFP, and have already accounted for the exercise. In the end, it usually balances out.

I am a huge huge huge proponent of eating your calories, at least some of them. Eat to fuel your body. That said, I also warn that MFP may not be exactly accurate. We also tend to overestimate our calories burned and underestimate the ones we eat. I never really eat all of mine back, but I do a good portion.

Eating too few calories can cause a number of problems including lack of energy and slowing your metabolism. Cutting as many calories as possible is not the best way to do this.

I realize that you said you have a lot of calories left over now because you exercised later in the day. Once you get on schedule, you can plan ahead and eat more calories throughout the day even before you exercise. You don't have to wait to burn them to eat them.

Considering this thread is most consistent with my question, I'd like to add mine here (no disrespect to the OP. If it is I will fly away elsewhere.)

I am a male, 346lbs and 6'0. The stats below are what I have done today. In MFP I have set no exercise program up and selected sedentary (this way I see the smallest amount of calories) and to lose two pounds a week. Of course, I would like more but understand this is a slow process.

Goal Food Exercise = Net
2270 1625 - 0 1625

So, according to other threads there is the debate on eating back exercise calories or not. There is viability to both options. However, what I want to know is this:
"Am I supposed to eat as close as possible to my goal to be successful?"
My fiancee and best friend (both female) are at 1500 and 1300 respectively and they keep griping that I get a whole extra meal compared to them (+700cal or so). So I was wondering if I were to lower my intake to the same level, would I be sabotaging anything or losing optimal returns? (I have a bet and need to lose two lb per week to make it so I am looking for efficiency)

Given that I am aiming for lower than what is called for, I would eat back my exercise calories but I want my net around 1500-1700 per day. Is this okay or am I going to kill my muscle and such?

Thanks for asking the question. I had the same one, and I feel much more educated.

Check this out, it's a lot of info, but it's worth it: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12

Considering this thread is most consistent with my question, I'd like to add mine here (no disrespect to the OP. If it is I will fly away elsewhere.)

I am a male, 346lbs and 6'0. The stats below are what I have done today. In MFP I have set no exercise program up and selected sedentary (this way I see the smallest amount of calories) and to lose two pounds a week. Of course, I would like more but understand this is a slow process.

Goal Food Exercise = Net
2270 1625 - 0 1625

So, according to other threads there is the debate on eating back exercise calories or not. There is viability to both options. However, what I want to know is this:
"Am I supposed to eat as close as possible to my goal to be successful?"
My fiancee and best friend (both female) are at 1500 and 1300 respectively and they keep griping that I get a whole extra meal compared to them (+700cal or so). So I was wondering if I were to lower my intake to the same level, would I be sabotaging anything or losing optimal returns? (I have a bet and need to lose two lb per week to make it so I am looking for efficiency)

Given that I am aiming for lower than what is called for, I would eat back my exercise calories but I want my net around 1500-1700 per day. Is this okay or am I going to kill my muscle and such?

The simple answer is to not eat (net) below your Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) (see APPS tab for the calculator). This is an estimate of how many calories your body will burn in a day if you slept all day or were comatose. In other words, this is the minimum number of calories your body needs each day to support the bare essential functions of your body.

That being said, why eat less than you are allowed? For most of us, it would be a lot easier to maintain a 2200 calorie diet than a 1500 calorie diet for the rest of our lives. That and if you lose the weight too fast you may have to deal with loose skin.

As for the ladies complaining about calorie difference between you and them; you won the genetic lotto (for this specific issue). Even if they were the same weight, height, and age as you, you as a male could still have a larger calorie allowance than they do. Due to the higher levels of testosterone (10:1) men produce compared to women; men have more muscle mass on average. The more muscle you have, the more calories you burn.

You need to eat all of your basic daily calories. As far as the exercise calories, no one seems to agree. You have to do what works for you. For me .. I will eat about 1/2 of my exercise calories, If I am hungry. If I don't feel hungry, I won't eat them. I do know that I lose just as much weight eating 1400 calories as I do when I eat 1200.