success not eating back exercise calories

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...

If I'm hungry then I eat if I'm not then I don't That's pretty basic

bump

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.

Nice reply.

I like to post this example so people can see the difference between MFP and what professionals suggest.

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 (1450+400) on the days you do. Whereas a "professional" may tell you to eat 1750 everyday regardless if you workout (they take your planned exercise into account when assigning calories, MFP does not).

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 (which means same weekly weight loss). 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, 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.

This... Is Perfect.

I never eat my my exercise calories back. To be honest, since i started dieting at new year i get full REALLY quickly and don't really eat a hell of alot. I find it hard to reach the 1200 cals that i am supposed to eat let alone eating more to compensate for the exercise! That's not to say that this is the right way to go about it as i know (i have had many people lecturing me) that it isn't but why eat when your not hungry just to reach your calorie target for the day!

Since you have been at this for a year, you may want to change your exercise routine. Our bodies are smarter than we are, so become more efficient at accepting whatever exercise we are doing. So you either have to do more or vary what you are doing so you can "outsmart" your body.

I get it now... thanks to everyone! Basically, yes, you'll lose weight if you don't eat them back, but you'll be losing muscle and probably will be hungry. If you eat them back you will still lose weight if you stay within the # MFP recommends, since the deficit is built in already. Sounds like this is the way to go. I am excited to try this - I am going to eat back 50-75% of my exercise calories since I estimate a lot and want to account for that. I will make sure my net calories are over 1200 as well.

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

Right. This is the only thing i've read on here that actually makes some sense! Thanks

When i started my weightloss journey January 2011, I was eating 1300 cals a day, and burning about 400-800 cals a day doing a different types of excercises. And the weight dropped offf! As i actually stuck to it - and not ate 1 excercise calorie back!

1300-800= 500 calories.

It's no surprise that you lost weight rapidly, as that is actually fewer calories than many people with anorexia nervosa consume.

What people don't understand is basal metabolic rate BMR. That's how many calories you need every day if you did nothing but lie in bed and breathe. From there there is a formula (Harris Benedict) that you use to determine (based upon your activity level) your daily caloric expenditure. Eating back 100% of the DCE allows you to maintain your current weight. To lose 2 pounds a week, you need to create a 1,000 calorie deficit.

Example

My BMR is 2026 calories. I am currently lightly active. According to the Harris-Benedict formula, I would need to consume roughly 2600 calories to maintain my current weight. Creating a 1,000 calorie deficit (2 pounds/week) leaves me at 1600 calories consumed. That's not too far off of my 1440 that MFP recommends.

I think a lot of the advice given here is really sensible but it is fair to say that it is YOUR body, and what works for someone may not work for someone else.

Personally, I try to look at it as a lifestyle rather than a regime - I intend to carry on living like this forever. If I am hungry, I eat into some of my exercise cals, my body is giving me a message and I respond. If I'm not hungry, I usually use some of the exercise cals to make up some of the vitamins or whatever I have been lacking for that day, so for example I may not be hungry but need some vitamin C, so I'll have an orange.

Then what is left over I 'save' for a treat or a meal out or whatever. I know that in myself I am going to want a treat every now and then, and as long as I've done the exercise and I'm not eating everyday, I don't see the harm in having some chocolate or a drink.

Put it this way, my calorie limit is 1200. This puts me at a loss even if i dont exercise. When (not if) I reach my goal weight, I still plan to eat well and exercise, but I'm not going to want to keep losing weight. So for me personally, eating back some of my exercise calories is the only way I can see myself sticking to this.

Sure, I could lose the weight quicker if I didn't eat my exercise calories, but it took me a good 3 years to eat my way up to my Start Weight, I need to give my mind and my body some time to adjust to losing the weight too. As well as trying to avoid lots of excess skin.
I also find it helps keep me motivated. On trying to lose weight previous times I'd be heartbroken if I didn't lose more than 4lbs, and it simply wasn't sustainable with my life - I don't want to never eat chocolate again! So having a rough guideline of 1-2lbs per week feels like a much easier mountain to climb

When I first started, I never ate them back and had success.

Now, in the final 10 lbs, my body is much more hungry and loses more when I eat them back.

Your body will tell you what to do. Just listen.

I should add that I was very scared to start eating my exercise cals, but I am SO glad I started! Good luck!!