success not eating back exercise calories

I guess I find it strange - biggest loser people dont eat theirs back, and also people on very low calories diets are also under the daily 1200 a day anyway, how come their metabolisms keep going?

VLCD they ruin theyre metabolisims thats why they arent a good plan Ive doen them many times and hence I have to work much harder to lose 1lb ,Biggest losers are exercsing to extreme
My partner hes a construction worker 5ft 10 weighs 154lbs and eats 5000 calories a day only pputs weight on if hes on a break from work so hes eating his exercise calories as hes on his feet 10 hours doing hard work 5 days a week at weekends he eat 2500 calories a day

I do not eat burned calories back and have been very successful. Originally I was shooting to lose 10 lbs but after losing 6lbs I am happy with where I am. I also lost 3.5 inches in my waist and 1 inch from both my hips and bust. And my loss was not "lean mass".

The less you have to lose the more important it is to eat them back. And I would argue that a large % of your loss was lean mass, as even body builders when cutting lose muscle, and they eat a lot of protein and lift heavy weights, both of which help retain muscle while in a caloric deficit.

On top of that with less than 10lbs to lose you weekly goal should be to lose no more than 0.5lbs/week or you will lose more lean mass then if you had a deficit this small.

i personally dont like eating the calories i have "earned" from working out. i see more results not eating them. when and if i eat them i tend to be stuck at a weight i cant break. i also think whatever is working for you then keep it up. if you hit a wall and the weight doesnt seem to be dropping off then tweak it .maybe eat only half of your exercise calories and if the weight starts again then you know what you should do. i think it is different for eveyone but i personally dont like to eat them.

You may see better results on the scale, but I can assure you that more of your loss will be from lean muscle then someone that eats them back, which means you may hit your goal wieght quicker not eating them, but you will have a higher BF% at that wieght, then if you did eat them.

So ask yourself, do you want to lose weight, or fat? If you answered fat, you should be eating most of your exercise calories back.

You know... I try to avoid engaging in debate with you because it never seems to go well. But you do know that the rate of muscle loss is dependent upon one's BMI, and for those that are obese, the loss to muscle is minimal, right?

A Registered Dietician (she's well known in these parts, appears on televsion regularly and has written several books on nutrition and weight loss) has helped me lose 35 pounds so far, and she never once mentioned eating back calories. In fact when I read about it here I told her about it and she was a bit surprised. She did some calculations with me, showed me how many calories I'm consuming in a week and how many I'm burning, and said I should certainly not be eating them back.

that's because "eating exercise calories" is specific to MFP. It's not a universal concept. But I guarantee that if you explained to her exactly how MFP does it, I'd bet she's changed her tune. As a personal trainer, I work with multiple Registered Dietitians, and I vet them all the time for clients. I only once had one question MFP's concepts and usually once they were explained that you're given a deficit before hand and exercise calories are just there to keep you within that calorie range they were fine with it. It's actually a very scientifically sound principle if you think about it. In fact, if I explained MFP to a dietitian and they said it wasn't a good idea, I'd require them to give me some very detailed explanations as to why. In fact, that happened once. And I became skeptical of the "dietitian" and I did some background checking on him, turns out he wasn't "registered" at all, he was a nutritionist who lied about receiving a degree, and I reported him to the AG's office and he was fined and his license was revoked. It happens.

It does happen, yes. It also happens with some trainers who are not qualified to give out advice on nutrition because they simply don't have the educational background (not saying this is you, just saying there are quacks in any profession, or people who consider themselves Jacks of All Trades. RD's have studied food science for years).

Everyone should do their research when consulting a professional, and everyone should take what they read on an internet forum with a grain of salt. My RD has not steered me wrong and I know I'm doing right by my body. A weight loss of 1-2 pounds a week is safe and healthy, and leads to a sustainable lifestyle change.

I do not eat burned calories back and have been very successful. Originally I was shooting to lose 10 lbs but after losing 6lbs I am happy with where I am. I also lost 3.5 inches in my waist and 1 inch from both my hips and bust. And my loss was not "lean mass".

The less you have to lose the more important it is to eat them back. And I would argue that a large % of your loss was lean mass, as even body builders when cutting lose muscle, and they eat a lot of protein and lift heavy weights, both of which help retain muscle while in a caloric deficit.

On top of that with less than 10lbs to lose you weekly goal should be to lose no more than 0.5lbs/week or you will lose more lean mass then if you had a deficit this small.

Well I am not here to argue. I had my stats done and I did not lose lean mass.

i personally dont like eating the calories i have "earned" from working out. i see more results not eating them. when and if i eat them i tend to be stuck at a weight i cant break. i also think whatever is working for you then keep it up. if you hit a wall and the weight doesnt seem to be dropping off then tweak it .maybe eat only half of your exercise calories and if the weight starts again then you know what you should do. i think it is different for eveyone but i personally dont like to eat them.

You may see better results on the scale, but I can assure you that more of your loss will be from lean muscle then someone that eats them back, which means you may hit your goal wieght quicker not eating them, but you will have a higher BF% at that wieght, then if you did eat them.

So ask yourself, do you want to lose weight, or fat? If you answered fat, you should be eating most of your exercise calories back.

You know... I try to avoid engaging in debate with you because it never seems to go well. But you do know that the rate of muscle loss is dependent upon one's BMI, and for those that are obese, the loss to muscle is minimal, right?

The more obese someone is the less muscle they should lose in theory (depends on protein intake, amount of strength training as well). Some of the people (a lot actually) that do not eat them back don't have a lot to lose and for them it can become a serious issue. if you have 100+ lbs to lose and set your goal to lose 1 lb/week, you would be fine not eating them back.

i personally dont like eating the calories i have "earned" from working out. i see more results not eating them. when and if i eat them i tend to be stuck at a weight i cant break. i also think whatever is working for you then keep it up. if you hit a wall and the weight doesnt seem to be dropping off then tweak it .maybe eat only half of your exercise calories and if the weight starts again then you know what you should do. i think it is different for eveyone but i personally dont like to eat them.

You may see better results on the scale, but I can assure you that more of your loss will be from lean muscle then someone that eats them back, which means you may hit your goal wieght quicker not eating them, but you will have a higher BF% at that wieght, then if you did eat them.

So ask yourself, do you want to lose weight, or fat? If you answered fat, you should be eating most of your exercise calories back.

You know... I try to avoid engaging in debate with you because it never seems to go well. But you do know that the rate of muscle loss is dependent upon one's BMI, and for those that are obese, the loss to muscle is minimal, right?

The more obese someone is the less muscle they should lose in theory (depends on protein intake, amount of strength training as well). Some of the people (a lot actually) that do not eat them back don't have a lot to lose and for them it can become a serious issue. if you have 100+ lbs to lose and set your goal to lose 1 lb/week, you would be fine not eating them back.

I agree that a lot of people should be eating them back, but aren't, but it creates confusion for people when their isn't a specification made in the difference. As a result, some people who are not yet in the appropriate BMI range can hinder their weight loss, just as I have done, by following that program too soon. It is your choice to post information on the boards however you want, but I urge you to make a distinction about the effect that BMI has on this particular topic. Obese people are in the most need of rapid weight loss, and are at the least risk of muscle loss, and should know that. Even though you might be speaking to one particular poster, everyone is reading these threads.

I see where you are coming from, but even for obese people they need to eat them back in order to lose their goal amount of weight. Yes they may lose more if they don't eat them back, but they must eat them back to hit not exceed their weekly goal. (and it is a goal for a reason, or at least should be). In any event what is wrong with only losing 1-2 lbs/week even if you are obese? This is what is recommended even for obese individuals (2lbs/week at most), as the slower the weight is lost the more likely the loser is to keep it off.

I take my advice from my wellness/fitness coach. No one else. These threads offer opinions most of the time not factual information.

There's lots of ways to get to the same goal.

I think most of us will agree that eating NOTHING is bad for you and ultimately won't help you achieve your weight loss goals (extreme starvation). One point that might be argued is that from a body energy perspective, eating 100 calories and then burning 100 calories is the same as eating 0 calories and eating 1000 calories and then burning 500 calories is the same as eating 500 calories.

I also think most of us will agree that eating 2,000,000 calories a day is also bad for you and ultimately won't help you achieve your weight loss goals (extreme gorging).

So we need a happy and healthy medium, one where you eat enough calories to survive, but not so many that you gain weight.

Taking the specifics aside, you can do that in a number of ways:

1) You can eat a baseline number of calories, and any effort you do over that baseline you would consume additional calories (MFP).

2) You can eat above the baseline, and let that buffer build but subtract from it with exercise. (what folks against MFP's strategy are doing by default).

3) You can recognize that estimations of caloric intake AND expenditure are notoriously inaccurate, and because of this try to find some happy medium of the first two options where you don't eat back ALL your exercise calories (but you do nourish yourself on days of extreme exertion) and you also recognize that you eating at the baseline probably means you're over a bit so it evens out (this is what I do).



The thing to realize is that those who are doing 2) by default need to recognize what they are actually doing. If you eat 1200 calories a day, and burn 1000 calories per day, your body will respond as if it's receiving 200 calories per day of nourishment (if it doesn't do this, there's a VERY good chance you're either overestimating calorie burn or underestimating calorie intake). That's what your effective baseline now is, 200 calories per day. If you think that's healthy and want to do that, then there's not a lot that I can do to convince you otherwise. Extremely overweight people like myself can handle that sort of thing better than folks who are closer to their ideal body weight, but they would still almost certainly wreak havok on their metabolism and cause other potential health issues down the road.

My $0.02

According to the wisdom on these forums I should be eating my exercise calories, but I did that for months (with a 1200 calorie diet) and didn't lose any weight.

About a month ago I started exercising more and only eating back some of the calories, maybe 25-75% depending on how hungry I am. Only then did I start to lose anything.

I think it's best to listen to our bodies. There are times after a workout (or the next morning) where my body really wants food, so I feed it. Other times I'm not hungry at all, so I don't bother eating the calories back.

According to the wisdom on these forums I should be eating my exercise calories, but I did that for months (with a 1200 calorie diet) and didn't lose any weight.

About a month ago I started exercising more and only eating back some of the calories, maybe 25-75% depending on how hungry I am. Only then did I start to lose anything.

I think it's best to listen to our bodies. There are times after a workout (or the next morning) where my body really wants food, so I feed it. Other times I'm not hungry at all, so I don't bother eating the calories back.

Your third paragraph sums things up perfectly. Everyone should just listen to their own body. You will know in yourself, if you really need to eat more Today.

I tried doing it properly for 6 months and lost nothing.

What I think might have happened is because I'm only 5'3, young, inactive (desk job) and weigh relatively little in the first place, my BMR is only just over 1500 calories. So to lose weight I have to have 500 cals per day less, right? So that's 1000 calories! Which obviously is not healthy and MFP bottoms out at 1200, which is what my goal calories were and what I was eating before.

Result: I mostly maintained my weight, with a couple of rare half pound losses on weeks where I was naughty and ate too little.

So I've just started again and I'm doing 1 hour of cardio boxing 4-5 times a week. Now I'm eating my 1200 calories (and a little more when hungry) and making sure the exercise brings me down to 1000(ish) cals per day.

Result: I'm now losing about a pound per week, which I think is a fairly healthy loss - it's certainly not dropping off me but at least it's working this time.

I tried doing it properly for 6 months and lost nothing.

What I think might have happened is because I'm only 5'3, young, inactive (desk job) and weigh relatively little in the first place, my BMR is only just over 1500 calories. So to lose weight I have to have 500 cals per day less, right? So that's 1000 calories! Which obviously is not healthy and MFP bottoms out at 1200, which is what my goal calories were and what I was eating before.

Result: I mostly maintained my weight, with a couple of rare half pound losses on weeks where I was naughty and ate too little.

So I've just started again and I'm doing 1 hour of cardio boxing 4-5 times a week. Now I'm eating my 1200 calories (and a little more when hungry) and making sure the exercise brings me down to 1000(ish) cals per day.

Result: I'm now losing about a pound per week, which I think is a fairly healthy loss - it's certainly not dropping off me but at least it's working this time.

Yup, some people will hold 1200 as the magic bar under which you'll immediately start to look like Bale in the Machinist but that's not the case. The important thing to recognize is that if you're eating 1000 calories, your daily consumption is 1000 calories. If you think that's the safest you can go and one day you exercise (assume perfect accuracy for the sake of the argument) and burn 500 calories, that day you should eat 1500 calories, or you should eat enough over 1000 calories over a given period of time to make up for that 500 calorie burn.

Basically: View your body like a car. Your body (and cars) needs fuel. Fuel = food. When you drive you burn the fuel, when you work out, you burn your food. If you would like to continue driving, you need to buy more fuel. If your body is going to continue to work, you need food. I've read that you should do your best to eat back 70-80% of the calories you have burned.

Basically: View your body like a car. Your body (and cars) needs fuel. Fuel = food. When you drive you burn the fuel, when you work out, you burn your food. If you would like to continue driving, you need to buy more fuel. If your body is going to continue to work, you need food. I've read that you should do your best to eat back 70-80% of the calories you have burned.

This is exactly how my personal trainer explained it to me, except he said imagine your cars gas tank was a water bed mattress.
Your cars BMR would be the gallons per hour needed for the engine to idle and maintain the cars systems 24/7, then if you drive the car, extra fuel is burned. So you put in more, but if you put in to much the water bed mattress starts stretching and making the *kitten* end of the car sag LOL!!!!! He said you gotta have your BMR, then if your cars mattress is to full, give it half of what it needs over the BRM for the miles you drive until its down the safe size.