success not eating back exercise calories

I dont condone this at all however I do weight training and cardio everyday so eating it all back is extremely hard! Sometimes I carry 600-1000 calories over and I am still seeing muscle gains and losing fat, the main thing I look at is whether I am constantly hungry, if I am not hungry I am not going to force myself to eat, but I do eat a lot

I totally agree with this!

Same here... Initially I ate 1200 or a little more for about i would say a month,, after being at a stand still on weight loss...I started adding more calories...and today I am eating close to 75% if not more of my exercise calories back.. I am never hungry so I try to find nutrional snacks to eatin in small portions....

I Know is said SUCCESS but I think many want to give you both sides of the success in EXERCISE Calories period..

GOOD LUCK to you in whatever you decide...

BUMP

i usually save at least 200 calories of exercise a day. some days i don't exercise i go over my calorie goal but i look at it weekly. once i started doing that it really helped me. some days are better than others but the week always works out. i'm still learning on this journey.i also agree eat when you are hungry and don't eat when you are not. i is hard to follow though.

bump

The P90x program, when you calculate your BMR has you eat those calories. Then is says to add 600 calories on workout days.

I have never ate any of my calories back and ive lost 60lbs in four months. Obviously the more weight you lose the harder it is but I am still losing the average amount of weight (most importantly FAT) that should be lost each week which is 1-2lbs
I had never even heard of eating back your exercise calories until i joined this site. I work out everyday and can sometimes burn between 700-1500 calories depending...
I think if your like me and work out often then maybe up your calorie intake to around 1500 maybe. That seems to work perfectly for me. I think eating back your calories counteracts the whole point of doing exercise which is to bun fat, to eat the calories back you might as well not exercise that's how I see it!

You do realize by running high caloric deficits (by not eating your exercise calories back or a big portion of them) you are also sacrificing muscle (when the body gets large caloric deficits it will burn the fasted source of energy to replenish what you aren't giving it, so it will attack muscle and break it down) it is not all fat that you are burning up which is counterproductive and will actually start slowing down your metabolism..... You can get away with it for awhile if you have a large quantity of weight to come off but eventually your going to hit the plateau wall, not to mention the muscle loss on top of it all... Just food for thought.......

Question: I am not so sure about your statement that "when the body gets large caloric deficits it will burn the fasted source of energy to replenish what you aren't giving it, so it will attack muscle and break it down". I thought that muscle was the last thing your body targeted for energy metabolism? And that is during extreme starvation mode. Glucose is the fastest available energy source in your body, then fat, then protein. That is why marathon runners eat carbs during their race which takes minutes, not a steak which would take hours to break down. Can you elaborate? Thanks.

Not the same person but from what I've read, as long as you're still in the obese category, you body does go for the fat more. The issue is when you start getting towards the normal end of the scale. That's when the body starts to go for the muscle more. It still happens when you're obese but on a much smaller scale. Even when you're obese the body is not picky with which muscle it eats.
It's not like your body goes, 'oooo glucose, awww none left, lets eat all the fat, awww none left let's eat all the protein'. While it's going for the glucose it'll start on the fat and a little of the protein as well.
Also the longer you stay at a massive deficit the body just get used to it. The metabolism will generally slow down to cope with less food (known as 'starvation mode'). So you have to eat less to lose and then the same thing happens again. The issue is when you you back to normal eating or maintenance. You start to gain because what was a normal amount of food for your body is suddenly a huge amount of food and you body will cling onto it. Of course this depends on how long you've done it for, the type of food you're eating and the exercise you're currently doing when you stop the 'diet'. Good news, you metabolism will go back to normal. bad news, probably not until you've gained all the weight back.

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?

I have met three people who were on The Biggest Loser. Not only have each of them gained back some of the weight they lost, none of them look healthy to me. They all have a bit of a saggy look. From what I have learned here on MFP and other informative websites/books/etc., I think this is because:

1. They lost weight so quickly that they lost a higher percentage of LBM (lean body mass) and their metabolism are operating at a slower rate which makes it easier to gain back the weight lost vs. someone who lost the weight more slowly. To put it another way, because they had lost the weight eating a VLCD (very low calorie diet), this also contributes to easier weight regain because their bodies have become used to eating that lower amount and are operating more efficiently. In laymen's terms, their metabolisms are trashed.

2. They all also had lots of loose skin after their weight loss. All have had to have some surgery to excise the loose skin. While genetics plays a part in this and, for some people, even slow weight loss will leave them with some loose skin, a slower weight loss is more likely to keep your skin firming up to match your shrinking body.

So the question is: Do you want to lose weight slowly retaining as much LBM as possible in order to look healthier and more fit at your goal weight AND be able to eat a higher amount of calories each day for the rest of your life while maintaining your weight loss?

If yes, follow MFP's guidelines and eat back at least 50-75% of your exercise calories. (The reason why I don't say to eat 100% is because of human error and potential miscalculations for amount of calories eaten and burned.)

If no, do whatever you want but don't be surprised if you end up skinny-fat and eating restricted calories for the rest of your life to maintain it.

I suppose a third choice is to lose it fast, end up skinny fat with a trashed metabolism, and then try to fix it later but I think that would end up being a more difficult way to do it.

And eating more while losing makes the weight loss process more fun and enjoyable without feelings of deprivation. I helped a friend move today and carted boxes back-and-forth to the moving truck for about 3 hours. I'm also doing a spin/abs class later today and then taking a 1 hour dance class with my husband tonight. This translates into a burn of about 1200 extra calories today. Because of that, I happily enjoyed the big yummy cinnamon roll she had there for us helping her move. While not the healthiest choice, a splurge like that doesn't hurt my weight loss as long as I exercise to counteract it. Isn't that better than never splurging and depriving yourself along the way? I think so.

AMEN!!!

After many months of NOT eating them back I finally understand why you are suppose to. MFP has set your deficit based on what you'd like to loose. Mine is a deficit of 500. SO basically if I do not exercise I will still loose 1lb a week, but if I do exercise my exercise cals will make my deficit larger than 500. Not good. So you eat atleast eat 1/2 (I do untill I get a HRM) if not all. Yet you are still loosing a lb a week because you already have your 500 deficit. Since Sept I haven't really lost scale weight. I just worked out and improve fitness levels. I have a gutty feeling that the scale has not moved due to exercise cals. So now I am eating half of them back

Like already stated on here eating back your calories is not a universal principle. So many people on here have said they only eat back half or 25% or none and still lose weight. Some have even said they don't lose anything. If this was the correct practise for everyone it would work for anyone trying to lose weight right?
I spoke to several people at the gym recently, Specifically people who have lost a significant amount of weight. They never ate back their calories, are able to maintain their weight normally and actually have a great deal of muscle. I don't think that you can claim everyone who doesn't eat back their calories loses muscles. I am NOT in the obese categorie and I have NOT loss anything but fat the last few months. When exactly is this suppose to start happening because according to a few of you it should be happening already right?

first, nobody loses all fat, even the most prolific weight loss is about 10% lean mass, if your deficit is very high, it goes up to about 15 to 20% lean mass.

Second, those of us who've done years of study into clinical research of this topic, will tell you that this happens when the body starts shifting hormone production into something called the "famine response" which means cortisol production increases, IGF-1 and IGF-2 production decreases, HGH levels go down, Thyroid activity decreases, and Testosterone productivity goes down. These all correlate into lower muscle mass production and repair, higher percentage of fat stored from nutritional glucose intake, and reduced organ and metabolic activity.

I'll shout this as loud as I can in a forum. THIS PROCESS IS VERY GRADUAL. You don't wake up one morning and say, wow, I feel like I'm in starvation mode. You'd probably never notice it unless you transitioned into what's known as actual starvation (a completely different subject by the way) because it can take many weeks and/or months to do this. Kind of like the frog in the slowly boiling pot example. Nobody notices a gradual reduction in power and energy because it's gradual.
That doesn't mean it's not effecting you long term.

Most people get the wrong idea when someone mentions "starvation mode". They think, no weight loss or burning mostly muscle mass, or no energy. That's not how it goes. Starvation mode is essentially your body trying harder to store calories and doing it's best to reduce the extra energy needed to do things over and above what is required.

Energy comes from 3 sources for humans, nutritional intake, stored fat, and lean mass. At ALL times you are using all 3 as energy. The percentages change based on activity level, age, health, weight, and sex (and genetics obviously).
The important thing to understand about starvation mode, other than that it is an actual, real thing, is that the more stored fat we have, the harder it becomes to reach that point.

The human body will pull fat from storage based on need, and availability. Fat is stored in pockets, and the body can only extract fat for energy from the surface areas of that storage, thus no matter how much fat you have, the further away it is from the vascular system, and the more dense it is, the less you can pull at any one time. Think about fat like a block of ice. You can't melt the middle until you melt the surface. Thus your body can only deliver so many calories from stored fat at any one time. It's limited, and not enough to deliver all the calories a normal person would need for every day homeostasis (maintenance), even if they were very obese.

Energy balance is constant, so if you are giving yourself 75% of calories needed to do what you're doing right now, then 25% HAS to come from somewhere else, that's not debatable, either you get it, or you quickly fatigue, if your body can only deliver 20% of the deficit from fat, then guess where the rest comes from (yep, lean mass).

Put that in terms of someone who doesn't have copious amounts of fat hanging around, Say they are eating 60% of their energy needs, not only does this leave little protein for muscle repair (and essentially none for new muscle growth), it also means they need energy from stored sources in the body OR their body will recognize a prolonged imbalance and reduce metabolic rates (by prioritizing organ function usually). So, that same person needs to pull 40% of their calories from somewhere, if they don't have lots of fat available, delivering that energy will be virtually impossible, even if they canabalize lean mass, thus the body reduces metabolic function to compensate. What are the first things to reduce? The defense systems and the external systems. Ever wonder why really emaciated people have really stringy hair, look pasty and sick? That's because their body has decided that they need energy for their liver, and heart, and brain, and kidneys, at the expense of their immune system and skin, and hair and nails. This doesn't happen in a day or two, it takes weeks or months depending on the deficit, the person, and the amount of fat available, and won't even begin until glycogen reserves are low enough to warrant it.

These things I've said are not up for debate, they are medical fact, you can look all of it up in any college level advanced nutrition and human metabolism book.

Please note, for nit pickers, I've left out some things to keep this somewhat readable, there's more detail to this story, a lot more. but this is a good outline.

-Banks

I've never eaten back my exercise calories to lose weight. The first time I heard about that was here on MFP. I tried to but I gave up on it because I find it really hard to find things to eat to make up for all the calories I burnt. Interesting discussion...