Do you guys eat back your exercise calories?

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...

You've missed the point of the way MFP calculates your daily calorie allowance. If you use MFP numbers, then that does not include any exercise, you add it (and eat it) as you do it.
If you have used a different method (that already takes exercise into account) then you're right, you shouldn't eat those cals.

And yes, I eat my exercise cals - why deprive myself of energy when I can lose weight eating those cals?

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-method

I am still perplexed, though. I might just be dense. Is my BMR 1200? MFP says that is what I should be eating per day. I eat back exercise calories. So why I am I still losing muscle? How much more should I be eating? This is what is scary for people, and frustrating. You put in your humbers, you get your calorie allowance. You eat it + exercise, still got a fat stomach but smaller legs. Something is wrong. Eating MORE is the answer?!? How much more? How can that be?

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...

That is a method for loosing weight.

You eat at maintenance level that does NOT include exercise. Must select activity level honestly. Weight loss goal to Maintain.

Then with exercise, you create a deficit. Enter your exercise calories so you know about how much you are creating, and see how it works out.

In studies it never works out great. You'd think eating at maintenance would keep you from feeling hungry, but usually people left to their own devices do the type of workout that leaves them hungry, and they end up eating back their deficit anyway. At least MFP would help with that aspect.

Now, if you can avoid doing that, for so many on here that make exercise such a major part of their new life, they probably could actually obtain it, and it would work out better for them.
But that's not how MFP is setup, though you could tweak it as such as described above.

Here is study showing it can work out just as well as diet and exercise. And much better than diet alone.

http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/DietExStudy.html

The group that exercised and dieted lost more fat than the groups that either dieted or exercised alone. The group that exercised gained the most muscle mass and interestingly, lost more body fat as compared to the diet group, although weight loss was marginally less. This study also demonstrates that exercise can maintain (and increase) lean mass while dieting.

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-method

I am still perplexed, though. I might just be dense. Is my BMR 1200? MFP says that is what I should be eating per day. I eat back exercise calories. So why I am I still losing muscle? How much more should I be eating? This is what is scary for people, and frustrating. You put in your humbers, you get your calorie allowance. You eat it + exercise, still got a fat stomach but smaller legs. Something is wrong. Eating MORE is the answer?!? How much more? How can that be?

Are you weight training? Eating more is the answer if you are not eating enough to sustain your metabolism and to fuel exercise.

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-method

I am still perplexed, though. I might just be dense. Is my BMR 1200? MFP says that is what I should be eating per day. I eat back exercise calories. So why I am I still losing muscle? How much more should I be eating? This is what is scary for people, and frustrating. You put in your humbers, you get your calorie allowance. You eat it + exercise, still got a fat stomach but smaller legs. Something is wrong. Eating MORE is the answer?!? How much more? How can that be?

Well, you will always lose muscle along with fat. But don't just assume that losing inches in your legs = losing muscles... Check your Body Fat % as accurately as you can (You can use things like callipers, Bod Pod if there is one near where you live, or measurements with www.fat2fitradio.com/tools )

You can't "spot reduce", that is, lose weight where you want, in any way. No specific exercise, no diet, nothing does that. Your body chooses where you lose fat, and if that for you is behind ears, between toes and around your calves before the stomach region, well the only thing you can do is reach your healthy Body Fat % and keep going It'll happen.

How all are you? What type of job do you have - even though you say it is sedentary, do you get up an walk around? How active are you outside work when you are not exercising? I find that most people are not really sedentary (in the MFP context) and should really be at least at a lightly active setting.

5'0" and a teacher. It's not exactly a desk job though I do spend a good bit of it sitting. I walk around I guess. I have a toddler so I do some walking around

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-method

I am still perplexed, though. I might just be dense. Is my BMR 1200? MFP says that is what I should be eating per day. I eat back exercise calories. So why I am I still losing muscle? How much more should I be eating? This is what is scary for people, and frustrating. You put in your humbers, you get your calorie allowance. You eat it + exercise, still got a fat stomach but smaller legs. Something is wrong. Eating MORE is the answer?!? How much more? How can that be?

No, your daily NET eating goal is 1200, MFP never said your BMR was until you manually ask. Here goes, get ready!

You enter age/weight/height, MFP calculates BMR but doesn't show you what it is (unless manually done - Tools - BMR calc).
You enter activity level, which may have little to no bearing on reality, which takes BMR times some multiplier (1.25 for sedentary), for a daily maintenance NOT including exercise.
You enter a weight loss goal (women of course select 2lbs wkly usually) that may or may not be wise, MFP says recommended 1lb (which will see may still not be wise at some point).
MFP takes daily maintenance minus weekly goal lbs * 3500 / 7 (daily deficit) = daily goal. Unless it falls under 1200, in which case you get 1200.
You are shown your Goals page where those facts are spelled out with confusing inclusion of your goal exercise amounts and calories - which have NO bearing on the math.
But several places on this page use a phrase not used everywhere - "Net Calories Consumed* / Day" and "Net Calories Consumed*" and footnote "* Net Calories Consumed = Total Calories Consumed - Exercise Calories Burned".
But it also says "Your Daily Goal".
And of course your Food Diary page says after logging exercise - "*You've earned 1 extra calories from exercise today" and changes Your Daily Goal automatically.

How can that be that eating more can lose weight?
BMR is basic metabolism for functions of life if in a coma 24 hrs, it needs so many calories to do all those functions. If it doesn't get them, the body has great survival mechanism, by just not doing some of them, in essence slowing down. (staying warm is easiest thing to stop, unless just really required for core temp. Muscle repair, muscle growth impossible, growing hair/skin well, fluid levels in every cell dealt with most required function still done as best as possible)

So what the body was willing to spend 1500 calories burning to accomplish, it now only has 1200 to do so, and it does so.
With a slower metabolism though, all your other activities in addition to sleep now burn less too.
What daily activity used to burn 800 calories on top of the 1500, now becomes 500 for instance, on top of the 1200. So lost 600 total calorie burn because of eating 300 less calories.
There is a lag time for that - based on how much yo-yo dieting you've done and how fast your metabolism has seen this before, how big of a total deficit compared to previous eating level, how big a deficit under BMR now, genetics, food eaten, ect. 3 days in some studies, some on here find 3 weeks possible if the stars align well, because of those factors.
That's if you net at 1200 because of eating back exercise.

Stop doing that because what used to be an 1100 calorie deficit (2300-1200) to previous eating level has slowly dropped to 500 cal deficit (1700-1200). So what started as 2lbs week at some point has reached 1lb.
So you either start exercising more or drop cal's or stop eating back exercise lets say.
So now eating at 1200, exercise takes 400 of that daily on avg. And that 400 is already less than it could be because of slower metabolism.
So now your body has 800 to work with, what used to take 1500 to do. Every thing slows down more.
Eventually, you have reached the wonderful level of:
800 NET for BMR, so that is BMR, * 1.5 for moderate level of exercise 5 times a week = 1200.

Congrats - now eating at maintenance level!

2 directions, eat even less or exercise even more - I hope obvious what will shortly happen in that direction.
Or eat enough to feed BMR and exercise, and let your daily activities that use mainly fat for energy create your deficit and burn it off.

That's what that link above provides, a method to ensure all that is done with all daily activity nailed as best it can, beyond 4 or 5 simple levels. Spreadsheet provided to make it simple in that link Topic.

How all are you? What type of job do you have - even though you say it is sedentary, do you get up an walk around? How active are you outside work when you are not exercising? I find that most people are not really sedentary (in the MFP context) and should really be at least at a lightly active setting.

5'0" and a teacher. It's not exactly a desk job though I do spend a good bit of it sitting. I walk around I guess. I have a toddler so I do some walking around

If you are a teacher and have a toddler - you should be at a lightly active setting at least.

My answer is to fuel the body, and eat the portion of the calories back that doesn't leave you hungry. I'll have to say some of the comments to this (good) question shock me as to how OFF they are. I'm no expert in nutrition topics, but as a former D1 athlete and having since had a very high BF% and come back to very low BF% a couple of times (on and off because I quit excercise and diet). My opinion here comprises pieces of several posts. One thing I heard is that heavier people can support larger calorie deficits--I agree with this. Another, and this supports the last sentence is: it depends! But I think the toughest thing that most people are struggling with is patience! Healthy and substantial fat loss for someone who has an extremely high body fat %, tends to happen quickly given a better diet and excercise, but for someone like me now (200 lbs and 6 ft. My body fat is around 18%) who is soft(er) that I would like: those fat pounds take more time! Sure I COULD lose the weight quickly by creating calorie defecits and starving myself, but the body is composed of fat AND MUSCLE. Calorie deficits mean the mind tells the body to consume body mass, whether that be fat and/or muscle. From my experience a catabolic state happens when you excercise and starve yourself. You WONT get large fat losses by doing this all too quickly! --unless you have a much higher body fat %, fat then the process can work this way INItially

So say my goal is to lose 15 lbs of fat to get to around 6% while not gaining subtantial muscle mass (this is a ballpark figure). I set my profile accordingly: 1.5 lbs a week. I set my BMR as sedentary (Im a student and sit a lot all day) however, I just started excercising HARD for about an hour a day, 6 days a week.. So according to MFP for me, normal daily activity with NO EXCERCISE should burn 2360 cals. To lose 1.5 lbs/week i need to consume only 1700 or so cals everyday to create a 500 cal deficit...and do the math...at the end of the week this deficit should add up to 1.5 lbs of fat calories--- Now, today for example: I did a very intense plyometrics workout that my HRM told me 1000 cals. So: there are people telling me that to lose the most FAT and to look and feel best, that since my body has burned about 3300 cals today I should only eat 1700?! NO! We need to be patient and let the body work and use the fat on the body as energy! That means we MUST FUEL BACK TO COMPENSATE FOR THE INCREASED DEFICIT that excercise caused. Not necessarily ALL of it...but what makes you feel good Now for someone much fatter that doesn't do harder excercise, maybe not eating so much/any back can benefit. It depends . BE PATIENT. I know this was long, but I hope it helps! Good luck!!

I get that, i snack throughout the day myself that way i dont feel hungry and i just dont feel the need to eat em back but im 5'3" and i weigh 242 lbs so far ive lost 8 which im sure is water weight but i feel stronger and happier already