Do you guys eat back your exercise calories?
Replies
-
I would advise to eat at least some of the exercise calories back, so your body is getting enough fuel to function and to keep from feeling ill, weak, or lightheaded. If not netting enough calories, you will end up gaining weight. A real high weekly loss usually evens out in the end and a person may not lose anything in following weeks0
-
just wondering...
If you want your body to actually improve from the exercise you are giving it, if you want your metabolism to be burning higher - yes.
If you want your metabolism to slow down and slow your weight loss and probably even stall, and possibly run into issues with muscle breakdown to make up for glucose stores being too low for your workouts - no.
Too many people don't know how to read how MFP works, they are so experienced with weight loss having done it time after time after time they don't need to educate themselves. And they never look at their figures, and for some odd reason must not realize that MFP ALREADY included a deficit in your daily non-exercise activity. Math was never the majority's strong suit anyway.
Perhaps the name of the website throws them off.
You might use the search button for the wonder it provides and discover you are hardly the first, and obviously not the last - to ask that question. Search also for "stall" and "plateau" and read the reports of those it happened too, and the fact they never did either usually. Though that was also a combined problem of eating too little.0 -
No offense but this frightens me.If your trying to lose weight, no you dont eat them back, the bigger defict the more you will loose, i have over a 2000 calorie defict every day im loosing 5 pounds a week by doing this
Wow....it frightens me too!
Probably pure luck that some numbers are entered wrong and she is benefiting by not abusing her system as badly as that sounds.
Like using an MFP estimate of calories burned, but in reality going so slow and so little effort and HR at the exercise, she is really no where near that level.
Then again, with a slowed down metabolism, you don't burn what you might be anyway, so again - body trying to save itself.
Then again, it is easy to lose more weight with muscle than with fat. Muscle is only 600 cal's per lb, fat is 3500.0 -
OK, so BMR is the calories you would burn if you do absolutely nothing. Don't get out of bed. You're in a coma. So let's say that's 1200. On a normal day, you walk around, cook dinner, carry bags, climb stairs, etc. Say that burns 1000 calories in the 16 hours youu are awake. That's not a lot for a whole day. That means you actually need to eat 2200 calories just to keep your body running properly. Then, you go to the gym and exercise for an hour and burn off several hundred more calories, but you are only eating enough to keep you going if you are in a coma, 1200 calories. Doesn't that just wreck your body in the long run? I'm new to this concept, trying to figure it out, but it seems to make sense. Thus, if you need 2600 calories just to run your body and do your exercise, and you eat 2100, you are still going to lose your pound a week. If that makes you feel uncomfortable, just eat the 2000 and give yourself that extra 100 as a buffer against user error.
Please tell me where my logic has gone awry. I tried to live on 1200 calories plus exercise, and not only was I not losing weight, but I was grumpy as all get out. Trying to eat a bit more and hoping for the best.0 -
Oh yea, and some people can't pay for gas to get to work because the supply and demand market has driven wages into the toilet. If they can barely make it to work, they damn sure aren't going to buy a HRM.
They should probably just assume they burned zero calories exercising, then. Easier to buy 4000 calories a day of food than put some of that money away for a couple weeks to buy a HRM.0 -
You mean you will lose weight in a caloric deficit? ShockingAs far as the benefits, you're making it too easy by asking for just one. Study after study shows that if your net caloric intake falls below your BMR, you begin to burn substantial muscle mass in addition to fat.
This makes no sense at all. Can you define "net expenditure" for me? How is my BMR "dependent upon my net expenditure"? My BMR is a PART of my net expenditure.Your BMR is dependent upon your net expenditure, and your net expenditure is dependent upon your calories burned. Thus, your exercise calories are directly related to whether or not you reach your BMR in terms of net calories consumed. By assuming you have burned "0 calories" exercising, you are thus burning substantial muscle mass.
As an added note, you are vastly simplifying the concept of "burning muscle mass".
But let's assume for a second that the above logic isn't flawed (which it is). If you can actually measure your exact "net expenditure", and will you then, in turn, consume exactly that many calories in return? How will this cause you to lose fat?
Let's assume for a second that everything you say is true.and it is absolutely critical for one to count the energy expenditure of exercise. Most people aren't very good at estimating this expenditure, and studies have shown this. It hurts their fat loss efforts more than helps in my opinion, and at the very least it unnecessarily over-complicates things.But you knew that, right? There's no way you couldn't know something so absolutely fundamental.
Sure, I'll do so. Let's keep with one discussion at a time though.In the meantime, I'm still waiting for you to cite a specific post where I recommended something unhealthy for someone. If you can't do so, please refrain from suggesting otherwise. If you have a specific beef with me, send me a message so we can rectify it. If you're just making wild and unfounded claims out of some sort of weird emotional need, let's not let it affect helping others.0 -
OK, so BMR is the calories you would burn if you do absolutely nothing. Don't get out of bed. You're in a coma. So let's say that's 1200. On a normal day, you walk around, cook dinner, carry bags, climb stairs, etc. Say that burns 1000 calories in the 16 hours youu are awake. That's not a lot for a whole day. That means you actually need to eat 2200 calories just to keep your body running properly. Then, you go to the gym and exercise for an hour and burn off several hundred more calories, but you are only eating enough to keep you going if you are in a coma, 1200 calories. Doesn't that just wreck your body in the long run? I'm new to this concept, trying to figure it out, but it seems to make sense. Thus, if you need 2600 calories just to run your body and do your exercise, and you eat 2100, you are still going to lose your pound a week. If that makes you feel uncomfortable, just eat the 2000 and give yourself that extra 100 as a buffer against user error.
Please tell me where my logic has gone awry. I tried to live on 1200 calories plus exercise, and not only was I not losing weight, but I was grumpy as all get out. Trying to eat a bit more and hoping for the best.
No one gets it that fast! :frown:
Fess up, you did some reading, and actual thinking, perhaps even got out scratch paper and did math. :bigsmile:
The only part of the story I'd change, is really having a BMR at 1200 when needing to lose weight. Only some very obese example where folks never moved much to build up muscle for that activity, have such low lean body mass and low real BMR. Most overweight folks (even BMI obese) actually move enough to have pretty decent LBM, and BMR's up around 1600-1800.0 -
I used this to calculate my BMR and then on the next page it tells you how much you should multiply that by, based on your activity level. Then if you decrease that by 500-1000 calories as a deficit, that's how much you should be eating. So plugged that number into MFP and when I work out I DO eat my calories back, because they are accounted for on MFP. Does that make sense? And I use a HRM when I work out to be as accurate as possible.
http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/0 -
Yes. I'm new to this, but I guess I am confused by all the talk on these posts of "eating back" your exercise calories, and don't quite understand the expression. I was under the impression that once you entered your weight and activity level, as well as what you wanted to lose (eg. a pound per week), MFP calculated what your NET intake of calories should be each day to lose at this rate . For me, that number was 1650 NET. So if I did no exercise, that's what I should eat. But if I burn 700 calories, and still only eat 1650 calories, that means I NET 950 for that day.
Personally, I don't think netting only 950 calories a day is healthy. If you did no exercise and only logged 950 calories (or 500, like some people said on here!) would anyone call that a healthy diet for an adult? Again, if I'm supposed to net 1650 and can still lose weight, why would I want to net so much less than that? I like the analogy of the body being like a car. If it stays parked in the garage all the time, you don't need to give it as much gas. But if you're commuting an hour to work every day, you will definitely need more fuel! The thing I make sure of with ALL my food, is that the calories I do eat are quality ones, that give me sustained energy, especially now that I'm working out. Eat the amount of calories you're supposed to net, but make them count!0 -
I already know what it means.
No, you don't. This is why you're still fat, or you at least posted a picture link to when you were still fat. You don't seem to understand that netting below your BMR results in muscle loss. This is counter to developing tone.
I'm sorry you don't understand, but there's simply no other way to simplify it. My only recommendation is to read the sticky threads for newbies again.
The fact that I've asked multiple times for any sort of evidence at all that I'm leading anyone astray, and you've refused to provide it, speaks volumes. I'm happy to provide citations. I only ask that you do the same.0 -
My calorie goal is 1500 each day. I am not in the practice of eating back my exercise calories in hopes of jump starting my weight loss. I spread the calories out through the day and have not felt the need ( or desire) to eat extra.0
-
]No, you don't. This is why you're still fat, or you at least posted a picture link to when you were still fat. You don't seem to understand that netting below your BMR results in muscle loss. This is counter to developing tone.
As I said before, you vastly oversimplifying how muscle loss works. But again, feel free to ignore the discussion and just point to more links.
Rather than address the arguments at hand, you continue to point me to general links on MFP, the cutting edge of science and research. Please do everyone a favor and educate yourself outside of MFP stickies before you offer more advice.I'm sorry you don't understand, but there's simply no other way to simplify it. My only recommendation is to read the sticky threads for newbies again.0 -
As I said before, you vastly oversimplifying how muscle loss works. But again, feel free to ignore the discussion and just point to more links.
And as I said before, please provide even one citation where I lead anyone to an unhealthy goal. I've asked three times now. I won't ask again.Rather than address the arguments at hand, you continue to point me to general links on MFP, the cutting edge of science and research.
If you'd like some scientific evidence outside of MFP, all you have to do is ask. I've already got 8 scientific articles, including 3 from the Mayo Clinic, ready to cite. On the other hand, if you've got some evidence to the contrary, please post it.
I don't really care how this goes, so long as you learn something in the end.0 -
If you actually demonstrate to me that you are actually willing to discuss a topic, I will gladly do this.The fact that I've asked multiple times for any sort of evidence at all that I'm leading anyone astray, and you've refused to provide it, speaks volumes. I'm happy to provide citations. I only ask that you do the same.
Up to this point, it is clear you are incapable of participating in an actual discussion. All you can do is post links to irrelevant stickies. Go back and address my previous post.0 -
Nope.0
-
OK, so BMR is the calories you would burn if you do absolutely nothing. Don't get out of bed. You're in a coma. So let's say that's 1200. On a normal day, you walk around, cook dinner, carry bags, climb stairs, etc. Say that burns 1000 calories in the 16 hours youu are awake. That's not a lot for a whole day. That means you actually need to eat 2200 calories just to keep your body running properly. Then, you go to the gym and exercise for an hour and burn off several hundred more calories, but you are only eating enough to keep you going if you are in a coma, 1200 calories. Doesn't that just wreck your body in the long run? I'm new to this concept, trying to figure it out, but it seems to make sense. Thus, if you need 2600 calories just to run your body and do your exercise, and you eat 2100, you are still going to lose your pound a week. If that makes you feel uncomfortable, just eat the 2000 and give yourself that extra 100 as a buffer against user error.
Please tell me where my logic has gone awry. I tried to live on 1200 calories plus exercise, and not only was I not losing weight, but I was grumpy as all get out. Trying to eat a bit more and hoping for the best.
Nothing awry with your logic!!0 -
If you actually demonstrate to me that you are actually willing to discuss a topic, I will gladly do this.
Up to this point, it is clear you are incapable of participating in an actual discussion. All you can do is post links to irrelevant stickies. Go back and address my previous post.
Okay, I'll address your previous post. Here goes:
You're wrong that exercise calories don't matter in fat loss. I have multiple pieces of evidence. The first few are from MFP. Several of them are from the Mayo Clinic, the forefront of human health. I can post links if you'd like. If you don't like the Mayo clinic, I have links from other independent sources as well. Just ask.
If you have evidence to bolster your claims, I'd love to read them. Even if they're from some other blog. Even if they're from YOUR blog, on Geocities. I don't even care where it's from. Any evidence at all is welcome. Perhaps I also have something to learn.0 -
Give me one good reason why it is necessary to calculate the caloric expenditure of exercise.
Because you are using MFP's method of no exercise included in daily eating goal until you do it.
If you don't estimate, and of course the better estimate is best, but safer would be over estimate, then your exercise will take from what you eat, leaving too little for what your metabolism would like to have to do it's functions. If it doesn't get them, it slows down.
That's issue one with eating too little, combined with not feeding workouts. Slower metabolism, slower weight loss, potentially ending up eating at maintenance level.
Issue two is you use up enough glucose stores, and your diet doesn't provide enough back, so you are in daily glucose deficit. Compared to normal calorie deficit, that is a bad thing. You run out stores, liver stores to be precise (400-450 cal of those), and muscle is the only thing that can be converted to blood glucose for all the organs (think brain mainly) that desire it. Until you eat 400 cal's of carbs.
Issue two is usually only going to impact low cal diets, but combined with exercise just worse for almost any level depending on how bad the exercise routine.
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/3/431.full#T2
"Skeletal muscle mass was preserved within the DietAerobic and DietResistance groups (P > 0.1); however, a significant (P < 0.001) reduction in skeletal muscle mass was observed in the DietOnly group (Table 2)."0 -
Go back and re-read my posts. And then tell me exactly where I said that exercise calories don't matter in fat loss. Because what I said and what you think I said are two different things.If you actually demonstrate to me that you are actually willing to discuss a topic, I will gladly do this.
Up to this point, it is clear you are incapable of participating in an actual discussion. All you can do is post links to irrelevant stickies. Go back and address my previous post.
Okay, I'll address your previous post. Here goes:
You're wrong that exercise calories don't matter in fat loss. I have multiple pieces of evidence. The first few are from MFP. Several of them are from the Mayo Clinic, the forefront of human health. I can post links if you'd like. If you don't like the Mayo clinic, I have links from other independent sources as well. Just ask.
If you have evidence to bolster your claims, I'd love to read them. Even if they're from some other blog. Even if they're from YOUR blog, on Geocities. I don't even care where it's from. Any evidence at all is welcome. Perhaps I also have something to learn.0 -
]
Go back re-read my posts. And then tell me exactly where I said that exercise calories don't matter in fat loss. Because what I said and what you think I said are two different things.
You're arguing semantics. I claimed that logging anything is better than nothing. I did this using multiple different examples on different posts. Afterwards, you claimed that zero was best. Perhaps you're claiming 100 is best, or 200. Or anything other than the exact verbiage I quoted. It doesn't matter. Zero is never best, if you exercised at all.
The newbie threads are up top. Read them. Understand them. You'll do better. You've already got multiple people giving you the citations you asked for, why logging exercise calories matter. Ignore them if you'd like, or read them and learn something. If your argument truly comes down to semantics, I'll back down and claim you're right. It doesn't even matter, so long as anyone reading this knows not to ignore their exercise calories simply because they're too lazy or unable to log them.0 -
No one gets it that fast! :frown:
Fess up, you did some reading, and actual thinking, perhaps even got out scratch paper and did math. :bigsmile:
I have been talking to people on here, and reading up. Also, working my @$$ off and not losing any weight, but losing inches on my calves and thighs, which were not fat. Oh noes, I thought. I am losing the wrong parts of my body. Something's wrong.
So now I am kind of angry at MFP. 1200 is not really a good place to set the base, is it? It should be 1200 + walking around calories + exercise calories. There is no consideration made for the walking around calories in MFP's equation, and that is what is throwing people way off.
The question then becomes: how many calories are you burning in an average day without exercise? 400? 500? More? I have a sedentary job, but I have a small child. Then I work out 6 days a week for an hour. It's hard to calculate. I imagine that I have to eat in a way that I can keep eating for the rest of my life. Dieting simply does not work. So I'm trying hard to figure this out. People who are eating 1200 calories then working out 300 calories... I don't know how they are surviving, much less keeping it off when they feel like living normally again.0 -
I have been talking to people on here, and reading up. Also, working my @$$ off and not losing any weight, but losing inches on my calves and thighs, which were not fat. Oh noes, I thought. I am losing the wrong parts of my body. Something's wrong.
So now I am kind of angry at MFP. 1200 is not really a good place to set the base, is it? It should be 1200 + walking around calories + exercise calories. There is no consideration made for the walking around calories in MFP's equation, and that is what is throwing people way off.
The question then becomes: how many calories are you burning in an average day without exercise? 400? 500? More? I have a sedentary job, but I have a small child. Then I work out 6 days a week for an hour. It's hard to calculate. I imagine that I have to eat in a way that I can keep eating for the rest of my life. Dieting simply does not work. So I'm trying hard to figure this out. People who are eating 1200 calories then working out 300 calories... I don't know how they are surviving, much less keeping it off when they feel like living normally again.
Now, you weren't going to need those big calf muscles later anyway, were you?
Are you saying you wanted to keep that muscle for as long as possible?
But wouldn't you rather slow your metabolism down and have the muscle you'll have at goal weight, just 30-80 lbs too early?
All sarcasm of course for anyone still reading these outside another poster that can't read.
Anyway, if you have decent daily routine you can indeed nail down decently, this would probably work well for you, plus maximize that BMR and daily activity deficit that is the true fat burner compared to exercise done in a day.
Really, who works out 1600-2000 calories daily anyway, sure hate to miss that burn.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/477666-eating-for-future-you-method0 -
No one gets it that fast! :frown:
Fess up, you did some reading, and actual thinking, perhaps even got out scratch paper and did math. :bigsmile:
I have been talking to people on here, and reading up. Also, working my @$$ off and not losing any weight, but losing inches on my calves and thighs, which were not fat. Oh noes, I thought. I am losing the wrong parts of my body. Something's wrong.
So now I am kind of angry at MFP. 1200 is not really a good place to set the base, is it? It should be 1200 + walking around calories + exercise calories. There is no consideration made for the walking around calories in MFP's equation, and that is what is throwing people way off.
The question then becomes: how many calories are you burning in an average day without exercise? 400? 500? More? I have a sedentary job, but I have a small child. Then I work out 6 days a week for an hour. It's hard to calculate. I imagine that I have to eat in a way that I can keep eating for the rest of my life. Dieting simply does not work. So I'm trying hard to figure this out. People who are eating 1200 calories then working out 300 calories... I don't know how they are surviving, much less keeping it off when they feel like living normally again.
There is consideration for 'walking around' calories - its the activity level you set. I do admit though I think the explanation of the non-workout activity levels is not very clear - and most fols pick sedentary when lightly active is more appropriate, The other thing is that people pick too high of a goal weight loss. The combination of these two usually leads to a goal of less than 1200 - which MFP over-rides with 1200. If you have a small child, I would think you are definately more than sedentary.
I agree with you on the sustainability of 1200 and the fact that they will most likely put it back on again.0 -
]
Go back re-read my posts. And then tell me exactly where I said that exercise calories don't matter in fat loss. Because what I said and what you think I said are two different things.
You're arguing semantics. I claimed that logging anything is better than nothing. I did this using multiple different examples on different posts. Afterwards, you claimed that zero was best. Perhaps you're claiming 100 is best, or 200. Or anything other than the exact verbiage I quoted. It doesn't matter. Zero is never best, if you exercised at all.
The newbie threads are up top. Read them. Understand them. You'll do better.
No, I'm not. You are making logical leaps as you did in your previous posts. You just claimed that I said "exercise calories don't matter in fat loss". Again, I'm waiting for you to point me to the place where I said that. What you think I said and what I actually said are two different things.
Here, I will summarize things for you:
The argument in reality was:
You believe it is necessary to keep track of your exercise calories
I believe it is not necessary to track. It unnecessarily overcomplicates things when it simply does not matter (in terms of TRACKING).
You, in turn, made some strawman arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand. I then called you out on your simplistic and flawed understanding of BMR (and thermodynamics in general), and I am still waiting for you to address those points. But by all means, keep making personal attacks and posting MFP links and asking me to read them. I'm sure that will really get us somewhere :laugh:. If it's not a scientific study, I likely won't be interested.
Still waiting for you to address the post. Here, I'll make it easy for you and paste it:
You mean you will lose weight in a caloric deficit? ShockingAs far as the benefits, you're making it too easy by asking for just one. Study after study shows that if your net caloric intake falls below your BMR, you begin to burn substantial muscle mass in addition to fat.
This makes no sense at all. Can you define "net expenditure" for me? How is my BMR "dependent upon my net expenditure"? My BMR is a PART of my net expenditure.Your BMR is dependent upon your net expenditure, and your net expenditure is dependent upon your calories burned. Thus, your exercise calories are directly related to whether or not you reach your BMR in terms of net calories consumed. By assuming you have burned "0 calories" exercising, you are thus burning substantial muscle mass.
As an added note, you are vastly simplifying the concept of "burning muscle mass".
But let's assume for a second that the above logic isn't flawed (which it is). If you can actually measure your exact "net expenditure", and will you then, in turn, consume exactly that many calories in return? How will this cause you to lose fat?
Let's assume for a second that everything you say is true.and it is absolutely critical for one to count the energy expenditure of exercise. Most people aren't very good at estimating this expenditure, and studies have shown this. It hurts their fat loss efforts more than helps in my opinion, and at the very least it unnecessarily over-complicates things.But you knew that, right? There's no way you couldn't know something so absolutely fundamental.
Sure, I'll do so. Let's keep with one discussion at a time though.In the meantime, I'm still waiting for you to cite a specific post where I recommended something unhealthy for someone. If you can't do so, please refrain from suggesting otherwise. If you have a specific beef with me, send me a message so we can rectify it. If you're just making wild and unfounded claims out of some sort of weird emotional need, let's not let it affect helping others.0 -
I'm on a 1200 cal diet also, and i agree with you!0
-
After reading all the posts here, I am confused. WHY would you eat back your calories? Isn't the one of the main points of working out to BURN calories? Why would you undo your 1 hour jog and eat them all back? Eating after a work out is good for you, gives you your energy, but shouldn't that be from the original calorie intake you set that you still have remaining for the day...? So if I burned say 400 calories in a day, I am not going to eat an extra 400 in addition to my set cals for the day and undo the workout, that doesn't make sense to me...0
-
i only eat back the calories if im starving! but that is rare.0
-
Yup, I exercise just to have the extra to eat.0
-
After reading all the posts here, I am confused. WHY would you eat back your calories? Isn't the one of the main points of working out to BURN calories? Why would you undo your 1 hour jog and eat them all back? Eating after a work out is good for you, gives you your energy, but shouldn't that be from the original calorie intake you set that you still have remaining for the day...? So if I burned say 400 calories in a day, I am not going to eat an extra 400 in addition to my set cals for the day and undo the workout, that doesn't make sense to me...
Working out has a load of other benefits besides just losing weight faster. But if the only reason you're working out is to watch the number on the scale drop faster, you're probably right.
On the other hand, if you want to maintain muscle you've built, making the weight loss a bit more gradual (which includes not having too high of a deficit) is helpful.0 -
After reading all the posts here, I am confused. WHY would you eat back your calories? Isn't the one of the main points of working out to BURN calories? Why would you undo your 1 hour jog and eat them all back? Eating after a work out is good for you, gives you your energy, but shouldn't that be from the original calorie intake you set that you still have remaining for the day...? So if I burned say 400 calories in a day, I am not going to eat an extra 400 in addition to my set cals for the day and undo the workout, that doesn't make sense to me...
If you already have an appropriate deficit baked into your base goal - then not eating them back dreates a bigger deficit, which can be too large for a healthy weight loss.
MFP bakes the deficit in already.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions