Eating Back Calories....I JUST DON'T GET IT.

No, I do not. I could understand a protein shake an maybe some fast acting carbs to help the body repair post workout but, eating back exercise calories? Je nais comprends pas?

This has been explained a million times already, but I'll try one last time.

When you sign up to MFP you select how quickly you want to lose weight...0.5lb a week/1lb a week/1/5lb a week...
MFP then tells you how many calories to eat to achieve this...the deficit needed is already there.
If you then exercise your deficit becomes even bigger and therefore you need to eat back the exercise calories to go cancel out the extra calories you've burnt ON TOP of the deficit.

For example (using a hypothetical person):

Maintainence Cals 2000
MFP goal lose 1lb/week
Daily deficit required to achieve this = 500cal a day
(this is worked out because 3500cals = 1lb and 500 x 7 = 3500)
Therefore MFP says eat a net of 1500 a day
You eat 1500 cals of food and all is great
But then you do a 300cal workout
Therefore you've eaten 1500 - 300 = 1200
To get back to the 1500 net cals you need to eat 300cals back.

Does this make sense?

http://www.shouldieatmyexercisecalories.com/

MFP already has a deficit. For example: 500 calories a day to lose 1lb a week.

If you exercise and burn 1000 calories you have increased that deficit to 1500. This might seem good at first: Bigger deficit = bigger weight loss, but it's not always healthy and you may find at some point that your weight loss stalls until you eat more again.

Also, the smaller deficit you have, the less likely you are to have excess skin (if you have quite a bit to lose), you're more likely to stick to it, as it is more manageable, and you will lose less muscle mass. (you naturally lose muscle as you lose weight)

Exercise is beneficial in many other ways than just burning calories. Find something you enjoy doing, and you can enjoy the benefits of greater cardiovascular health / better fitness, the ability to eat more yet still lose weight, and you may even find a new hobby in the process

MFP already has a deficit. For example: 500 calories a day to lose 1lb a week.

If you exercise and burn 1000 calories you have increased that deficit to 1500. This might seem good at first: Bigger deficit = bigger weight loss, but it's not always healthy and you may find at some point that your weight loss stalls until you eat more again.

Also, the smaller deficit you have, the less likely you are to have excess skin (if you have quite a bit to lose), you're more likely to stick to it, as it is more manageable, and you will lose less muscle mass. (you naturally lose muscle as you lose weight)

Exercise is beneficial in many other ways than just burning calories. Find something you enjoy doing, and you can enjoy the benefits of greater cardiovascular health / better fitness, the ability to eat more yet still lose weight, and you may even find a new hobby in the process

Again, MFP figures are usually far to generous IMO.

Is there any real scientific evidence that suggest that your weight loss will slow or stop if your deficit is too large?

Try to understand it in simple terms.

If you dont you are creating a bigger defecit which means you lose weight quicker.

Losing slowly and steadily is the best way to end up with an end result you are happy with and not with a load of sagging skin wrapped around bones.

Most people on here aren't bodybuilders, they are just regular people trying to lose weight.

If you told someone on 1200 calories NOT To eat back the 500 calories thay had just burned, leaving them a net 700, surely that's worse than them eating some sensible calories to get back to their goal calories.

Nobody is suggesting that people go out and eat McDonalds burgers to make up their exercise calories.

Sigh.

I have the same digestive etc systems as you. I higher muscle mass which ultimately enable one to burn more calories and retain less fat as your metabolism is increased. I'm not remotely different to you, just I have a different shape and eat as my body actually needs.

As for calories, it shouldn't be just 'calories'. Your body doesn't need 'calories' it needs protein and fast carbs to repair. Which is where the eating back falls over.

As for me being a body builder so its not the same, tell this to my misses who recently lost 3 stone following my advice on IF



She's no body builder and did zumba for her resistance, cardio and ab work. We all work in a very similar way.

But you seemed to be advocating not eating the calories back at all.

Yes your way of eating tham back in the right macros is probably the right way to do it, but eating them back simply as part of a persons normal healthy calorie intake, is better than not eating than and trying to survive on a net of 700 calories.


.

Correct.

They aren't trying to survive on 700 calories. They ingested 1200 calories. If you train say 4x a week and don't digest the extra 500 cals, you will have an extra 2000 calories burnt from your fat stores. Thats not a huge amount of difference and will not put you at any risk, its an extra half a pound of fat. Also the body prefers to use fat stores when pushed with weights and steady state cardio which most people will do.

But you seemed to be advocating not eating the calories back at all.

Yes your way of eating tham back in the right macros is probably the right way to do it, but eating them back simply as part of a persons normal healthy calorie intake, is better than not eating than and trying to survive on a net of 700 calories.


.

Correct.

They aren't trying to survive on 700 calories. They ingested 1200 calories. If you train say 4x a week and don't digest the extra 500 cals, you will have an extra 2000 calories burnt from your fat stores. Thats not a huge amount of difference and will not put you at any risk, its an extra half a pound of fat. Also the body prefers to use fat stores when pushed with weights and steady state cardio which most people will do.

You are the only person I have seen on here that believes netting 700 calories is OK.

but somehow looking at your profile, I doubt that has ever been an issue for you

This is how i see it...
Lets say you are saving money for a new car and you need $1000
You make $1000/month. Ideally, you could save up for the car in only one moths time. But u still have to pay rent and buy food, so that "spends" some of your money, lets say $500. This means you will have to work extra (work out) to "earn" money toward your savings. Even if you only earn back part of the deficit, you are still going to eventually get to your savings goal. I try to eat back some calories that i burn, but not all. Keep in mind, everything you record isnt exact, and you have to allow for the fact that some foods are higer in cal than you anticipate and your exercise probably doesnt burn as many cals as a hrm or mfp says. Eating some calories will allow you to gain energ for those workouts, yet not eating them all back will still allow for error.

But you seemed to be advocating not eating the calories back at all.

Yes your way of eating tham back in the right macros is probably the right way to do it, but eating them back simply as part of a persons normal healthy calorie intake, is better than not eating than and trying to survive on a net of 700 calories.


.

Not the only one, actually.
If you think about it, your body uses FAT STORES for daily activities. For exercise, glycogen. I agree you need to replace the glycogen burnt, but why not work in into your calorie allowance? Why would you want to replace calories if they were from fat stores?



Correct.

They aren't trying to survive on 700 calories. They ingested 1200 calories. If you train say 4x a week and don't digest the extra 500 cals, you will have an extra 2000 calories burnt from your fat stores. Thats not a huge amount of difference and will not put you at any risk, its an extra half a pound of fat. Also the body prefers to use fat stores when pushed with weights and steady state cardio which most people will do.

You are the only person I have seen on here that believes netting 700 calories is OK.

but somehow looking at your profile, I doubt that has ever been an issue for you

My best advice is: do what is best for YOU.

People here will argue back and forth about this subject and I will never understand it. I personally eat back my exercise calories because to maintain my weight, I have to eat 1860 calories perday. But because I have told MFP that I want to lose a pound a week, the site told me to eat -500 calories, so... 1360 calories per day. However, when I exercise I burn about 300-500 calories per session so on the days when I have a super high calorie burn such as 500, it would bring my calories down to 860 per day. A general rule of thumb is that people shouldn't eat less than 1200 calories perday, so I eat back a good portion of my calories.

It might not work for John Smith or Jane Doe, but it works for me. I continue to lose weight, I still gain all the benefits of exercise (being fit, increasing endurance, turning my flabby arms into prize winning guns etc etc) and the best part? I'm not hungry and it's something I can easily maintain because this is a lifelong change, not just a quick resrictive diet to get to a certain weight.

So in the end, do what is best for you. Eat them back, don't eat them back. It makes no difference, either way someone will tell you that you are wrong. :flowerforyou:

but somehow looking at your profile, I doubt that has ever been an issue for you

Please don't use the cop out that I don't know what you've been thro - I have been much fatter and known and helped people lose weight as they wanted too.

You are not surviving on 700 calories a day. You are ingesting 1200 calories a day. You have huge fat stores (not you personally, you as in people in general) which are stored for energy. You burn these fat stores, the 1200 calories simply provides your body enough calories to prevent the body the body lowering leptin levels and thus slowing the release of triiodothyronine into the body and so slowing the metabolism.

As for me, this is me 3-4 years back, I did hold quite a bit of fat.

This is most peoples after photo,not before.

Ok the thing is to eat more than you burn so why is eating back calories included encouraged?! I have asked this question over and over but no one seems to know the answer. It just seems like you are canceling out the burn by eating the calories back. I just dont get it...DOES ANYONE UNDERSTAND THIS PHILOSOPHY??

So just a quick explination because I do understand why this would seem confusing. But it's not a philosophy, it's really, quite simply, the way MFP was designed. If you look at it in context of other calorie counting systems or diet/weightloss programs it's actually almost identical. Lemme explain...no there is too much, lemme sum up: (Sorry I couldn't resist the princess bride line)

MFP creates a daily calorie goal based on the factors filled out on your profile. They start by estimating how much you burn (using age/height/weight/activity level). Let's say it's 1800 for fictional example girl (FEG). Then you indicate how much you want to lose, let's say FEG wants to lose 1lbs a week- that's 3500 calories she has to burn off each week- or 500 calories per day. So MFP sets her goal at 1300 NET calories. Net because they intend for her to eat back anything additional she burns off - if you look at your profile you will see this is how MFP was designed. They simply factor the entire deficit before you do any working out.

If you were to use a typical diet program, they use both the exercise and the calorie intake to cut the same 500 calories. EG: most programs in Women's Health will give you a "customized" diet and workout regimin. The diet will be roughly 1500-1600 calories per day and the workout will have you burn 200-300 calories per day. So if FEG just follows this plan exactly, she will be cutting 200-300 calories out of her diet (from 1800 to 15-1600) AND from her workout (200-300 per). This still puts her NET calories - ones that go to her body's basic functioning- at 1300 calories. But if she skips a workout she may not think to cut her calories accordingly for the day, and thus may lose more slowly.

MFP is just an accounting system. Eating back exercise calories isn't a philosphy. It's the design of the program in which you are participating. Every thing is based on estimates, so you may need to adjust how many you eat back because the estimate may be a little inaccurate. But eating 1200 calories and burning off 500 and not eating them back is not only dangerous, it's stupid as well.