Do I need to eat back my exercise calories?

chapparra27
chapparra27 Posts: 115 Member
edited December 18 in Food and Nutrition
Was wondering if I am supposed to eat back my exercise calories? I have a goal of 1,360 calories a day which I have trouble getting to because I am not used to eating as often as I need to and as healthy as I have begun to. I work out 8-9 times a week...Monday I do RPM ( stationary bike, interval training) Step ( High intensity interval training) and Pump ( weight lifting) on Tuesday and Thursday ,Sh'bam (like Zumba with more hip hop), RPM on Friday, Pump on Saturday, and RPM on Sunday. I am burning anywhere from 600, 900 calories each day soley based on exercise. I went from the WW points system to MFP and that week I lost 3 pounds since then I have not budged but I have not been eating back my exercise calories either. My total intake after working out has been 600-800 calories. So do I need to eat more?

Replies

  • EuroDriver12
    EuroDriver12 Posts: 805 Member
    imo dont eat back all ur excersise calories.. eat about 1/4 or 2/4 of them back, this will ensure you are still under, see weight loss results quicker and you have to remember all the calorie calculations including HRM are just an estimate :) play around and see what works for u

    ps. dont want to hear u complaining you having trouble getting to ur cal goals because it should never be an issiue.. just need to add healthy fats and bam!

    cold pressed olive oil - 120cals 1tbsp
    peanut butter - what is it 60-100cals? havent eatn dont remember hehe
    1 cup milk - 110cals
    ground flax seed - 90cals per serving..

    list goes on :) n their such small u dont even notice
  • exacerbe
    exacerbe Posts: 447 Member
    If your goal is only 1300... I would eat more than 1/4 or 1/2 as the above user posted. You don't want your net caloric intake to fall below 1200-1300.
  • kimmers1027
    kimmers1027 Posts: 122
    I havent been able to eat my exercise calories at all !! Been on here for 15 days and I have not been able to do it yet. I have lost weight and it doesnt seem to affect me. Although I do wonder if I do eat them if the weight will come off faster. :smile:
  • Mommy_Time
    Mommy_Time Posts: 256 Member
    You should eat them all back if you are exercising a bunch as your body needs the fuel. It depends on what your calorie intake is to begin with as well.
  • EuroDriver12
    EuroDriver12 Posts: 805 Member
    I havent been able to eat my exercise calories at all !! Been on here for 15 days and I have not been able to do it yet. I have lost weight and it doesnt seem to affect me. Although I do wonder if I do eat them if the weight will come off faster. :smile:

    weight wont come off faster... putting into accaunt your excise calories will ensure that you are not too far under at the end of the day and you dont loose valuable muscle.. for women most of the time this is not an issiue as their main goal is weight loss and not 5% body fat.. :)
  • caitlinmcauley
    caitlinmcauley Posts: 59
    i typically dont eat any of my exercise calories back. if i start to plateau, ill eat some of them back, cause that helps me work through the plateau.
  • chapparra27
    chapparra27 Posts: 115 Member
    imo dont eat back all ur excersise calories.. eat about 1/4 or 2/4 of them back, this will ensure you are still under, see weight loss results quicker and you have to remember all the calorie calculations including HRM are just an estimate :) play around and see what works for u

    ps. dont want to hear u complaining you having trouble getting to ur cal goals because it should never be an issiue.. just need to add healthy fats and bam!

    cold pressed olive oil - 120cals 1tbsp
    peanut butter - what is it 60-100cals? havent eatn dont remember hehe
    1 cup milk - 110cals
    ground flax seed - 90cals per serving..

    list goes on :) n their such small u dont even notice

    Thanks.....I think your right about eating my goal in calories. Maybe I will just add in some peanut butter when I need more.
  • chapparra27
    chapparra27 Posts: 115 Member
    If your goal is only 1300... I would eat more than 1/4 or 1/2 as the above user posted. You don't want your net caloric intake to fall below 1200-1300.
    I wondered about the net calories being so low too. Thank you. This can be very confusing when your a rookie.
  • dlwyatt82
    dlwyatt82 Posts: 1,077 Member
    Eating back all your exercise calories keeps your daily deficit consistent. If you choose not to eat all of them back, the weight may come off faster, but you may feel hungry or have a hard time maintaining it. Going too low on your calories causes some negative consequences to your metabolism.

    Don't listen to people telling you not to "net" under a static number, whether that is your BMR, 1200, or whatever. If your initial target recommended by MFP is only like 1300, then "netting" under 1200 means you're only adding an extra 100 calories or so to your deficit, which shouldn't be excessive. You should make sure you're eating at least 1200 total calories, but the "net" number depends on whatever your target was before logging any exercise.
  • chapparra27
    chapparra27 Posts: 115 Member
    i typically dont eat any of my exercise calories back. if i start to plateau, ill eat some of them back, cause that helps me work through the plateau.
    I have hit a plateau a few times and somehow I break threw, it takes 3-4 weeks but I get through. I am afraid to add calories because I am afraid to see the number on the scale go up. But from what I am seeing on here that is exactly what I need to do.
  • chapparra27
    chapparra27 Posts: 115 Member
    Eating back all your exercise calories keeps your daily deficit consistent. If you choose not to eat all of them back, the weight may come off faster, but you may feel hungry or have a hard time maintaining it. Going too low on your calories causes some negative consequences to your metabolism.

    Don't listen to people telling you not to "net" under a static number, whether that is your BMR, 1200, or whatever. If your initial target recommended by MFP is only like 1300, then "netting" under 1200 means you're only adding an extra 100 calories or so to your deficit, which shouldn't be excessive. You should make sure you're eating at least 1200 total calories, but the "net" number depends on whatever your target was before logging any exercise.
    So your saying I should be able to lose if I do not eat back my exercise calories?
    Sunday I took in 1,472 calories ( my goal was 1,470 before I updated my weight) but I burned off 754 so my net was only 718. Is that a bad or a good thing?
  • dlwyatt82
    dlwyatt82 Posts: 1,077 Member
    Eating back all your exercise calories keeps your daily deficit consistent. If you choose not to eat all of them back, the weight may come off faster, but you may feel hungry or have a hard time maintaining it. Going too low on your calories causes some negative consequences to your metabolism.

    Don't listen to people telling you not to "net" under a static number, whether that is your BMR, 1200, or whatever. If your initial target recommended by MFP is only like 1300, then "netting" under 1200 means you're only adding an extra 100 calories or so to your deficit, which shouldn't be excessive. You should make sure you're eating at least 1200 total calories, but the "net" number depends on whatever your target was before logging any exercise.
    So your saying I should be able to lose if I do not eat back my exercise calories?
    Sunday I took in 1,472 calories ( my goal was 1,470 before I updated my weight) but I burned off 754 so my net was only 718. Is that a bad or a good thing?

    No, I said the opposite. Eating your exercise calories is the intended use of this site. If you don't eat them all back, you're increasing your deficit, which may hinder your weight loss if your deficit gets too big. A couple hundred calories here and there won't change much, but consistently eatting too little will cause you problems.

    Eating 750 calories under your target is almost certainly a bad thing, since your target was already figuring in a 500 - 1000 calorie deficit.
  • mpizzle421
    mpizzle421 Posts: 80 Member
    I realize that "starvation mode" gets totally blown out of proportion, but I think most agree that the human body is quite good at adapting to reduced calories by burning less energy (slowing down the metabolism).

    If you can eat MORE, and lose the same amount of fat without the metabolic slowdown and all of it's disadvantages, why wouldn't you?
  • chapparra27
    chapparra27 Posts: 115 Member
    Eating back all your exercise calories keeps your daily deficit consistent. If you choose not to eat all of them back, the weight may come off faster, but you may feel hungry or have a hard time maintaining it. Going too low on your calories causes some negative consequences to your metabolism.

    Don't listen to people telling you not to "net" under a static number, whether that is your BMR, 1200, or whatever. If your initial target recommended by MFP is only like 1300, then "netting" under 1200 means you're only adding an extra 100 calories or so to your deficit, which shouldn't be excessive. You should make sure you're eating at least 1200 total calories, but the "net" number depends on whatever your target was before logging any exercise.
    So your saying I should be able to lose if I do not eat back my exercise calories?
    Sunday I took in 1,472 calories ( my goal was 1,470 before I updated my weight) but I burned off 754 so my net was only 718. Is that a bad or a good thing?

    No, I said the opposite. Eating your exercise calories is the intended use of this site. If you don't eat them all back, you're increasing your deficit, which may hinder your weight loss if your deficit gets too big. A couple hundred calories here and there won't change much, but consistently eatting too little will cause you problems.

    Eating 750 calories under your target is almost certainly a bad thing, since your target was already figuring in a 500 - 1000 calorie deficit.
    Thank you :) thant is wxactly what I needed to know. I am going to start adding calories to my day and see how it goes. I am going to add gradually. I think this is why I lost 3 pounds after stopping the Weight watchers points program. I added up the point calories and I was only eating 900 a day!
    Thanks again
  • chapparra27
    chapparra27 Posts: 115 Member
    I realize that "starvation mode" gets totally blown out of proportion, but I think most agree that the human body is quite good at adapting to reduced calories by burning less energy (slowing down the metabolism).

    If you can eat MORE, and lose the same amount of fat without the metabolic slowdown and all of it's disadvantages, why wouldn't you?
    I agree, it is just scary when your trying to lose weight to eat more. The whole concept threw me off. I will trust to process and do what everyone is telling me works. Thank you
  • andreanicole686
    andreanicole686 Posts: 406 Member
    Your already in a deficit from the amount needed (2,000-2200) so yes. When I started eating back by calories I started losing weight. I would say try it for 2 weeks and see if it works for you. Good luck!
  • Zumbagurl64
    Zumbagurl64 Posts: 155 Member
    I can't or I won't loose.....
  • cgillo
    cgillo Posts: 5 Member
    I'm not sure if it's a language thing but what is 'eating back''? Is this the same as eating up so if I burn 200 cals on exercise I can eat an extra 200? Can anyone explain the 'back' bit in 'eating back'? I see the term a lot but just want to check I'm understanding it.
  • suaku
    suaku Posts: 45
    One other thing to note, some exercise equipment (elliptical trainers, among many others) over-report the calories burned in exercising. I always guesstimated that it was 20% too high, and after having a metabolic fitness testing, that turned out to be pretty close to true. When the elliptical says I've burned 1,000 calories, sadly I've burned only about 800 or so. I've found that treadmill calories are more accurate, but your results may vary.

    The only reason I mention this is in regard to eating back calories. My nutritionist suggested that I do *not* eat back all of my exercise calories because if you eat back all the calories that the machine tells you, you may actually eating more than you really burned.
  • ElizaRoche
    ElizaRoche Posts: 2,005 Member
    I never do.. I am ok with 1000-1200 a day, if I eat more than that I feel bloated and in a bad mood, no matter how much I work out.
  • Captain_Tightpants
    Captain_Tightpants Posts: 2,215 Member
    Eat back 1/2 to 2/3 - that compensates for the inevitable tendency to overestimate calories burned and underestimate calories eaten.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    http://shouldieatmyexercisecalories.com
  • chapparra27
    chapparra27 Posts: 115 Member
    Your already in a deficit from the amount needed (2,000-2200) so yes. When I started eating back by calories I started losing weight. I would say try it for 2 weeks and see if it works for you. Good luck!
    I am going to try adding 200 calories a day this week and gradually go up until the scale changes. Thank you and congrats on your success.
  • chapparra27
    chapparra27 Posts: 115 Member
    Eat back 1/2 to 2/3 - that compensates for the inevitable tendency to overestimate calories burned and underestimate calories eaten.
    That is exaclty what I was thinking :)
  • dlwyatt82
    dlwyatt82 Posts: 1,077 Member
    I'm not sure if it's a language thing but what is 'eating back''? Is this the same as eating up so if I burn 200 cals on exercise I can eat an extra 200? Can anyone explain the 'back' bit in 'eating back'? I see the term a lot but just want to check I'm understanding it.

    It's just how MyFitnessPal displays your numbers for the day. When you log exercise, insetad of increasing your target for the day, it subtracts that number from what you've already eaten. So when you eat more calories, it looks like you're just going "back" to where you were before exercise.
  • betholiver
    betholiver Posts: 70
    hu
  • chapparra27
    chapparra27 Posts: 115 Member
    One other thing to note, some exercise equipment (elliptical trainers, among many others) over-report the calories burned in exercising. I always guesstimated that it was 20% too high, and after having a metabolic fitness testing, that turned out to be pretty close to true. When the elliptical says I've burned 1,000 calories, sadly I've burned only about 800 or so. I've found that treadmill calories are more accurate, but your results may vary.

    The only reason I mention this is in regard to eating back calories. My nutritionist suggested that I do *not* eat back all of my exercise calories because if you eat back all the calories that the machine tells you, you may actually eating more than you really burned.
    This is why I plan to add slowly instead of eating all of them back immediately. I am doing to start with 200 a day and go from there.
  • BuckeyeLife
    BuckeyeLife Posts: 313 Member
    There are websites out there that give more accurate estimations than the machine's 'default" system. HRM gets you even closer to a rough idea of your actual burn.

    My experience with calories in the last 3-4 weeks:

    Weeks where I stayed right no my NET of 1800(eating back my calories) and working out 4-6 times a week with cardio, I was having trouble getting weight to come off. (I will explain my theory in a minute.)

    The weeks where I worked out a little less and would drop 2-4x the weight of the harder weeks, but I also ate closer to 2200-2400. I now have a HRM I have been wearing since 11 last night to see just a rough idea of my calories burnt. I am 16 hours in, I already am registering 2450 calories burned. I still have a weight lifting session with a personal trainer, I expect to end up close to 3400 calories burned for day through 24 hours. Give/take 200.

    That means I was focusing on fueling my body for 1800 calories before, I upped my goal yesterday pre-HRM arrival to 2100 anyway because I have had the theory my weight loss issue was related to under eating. Now, as I can see on my HRM, my body on a normal day is just wanting 3k+ calories and I was only giving it 1800, huge deficit. I lost 2-4x the weight when I ate 2200-2400 calories a day(and eating back most of my workout calories) than when I was eating well and working out hard and eating all my calories back.
  • chapparra27
    chapparra27 Posts: 115 Member
    There are websites out there that give more accurate estimations than the machine's 'default" system. HRM gets you even closer to a rough idea of your actual burn.

    My experience with calories in the last 3-4 weeks:

    Weeks where I stayed right no my NET of 1800(eating back my calories) and working out 4-6 times a week with cardio, I was having trouble getting weight to come off. (I will explain my theory in a minute.)

    The weeks where I worked out a little less and would drop 2-4x the weight of the harder weeks, but I also ate closer to 2200-2400. I now have a HRM I have been wearing since 11 last night to see just a rough idea of my calories burnt. I am 16 hours in, I already am registering 2450 calories burned. I still have a weight lifting session with a personal trainer, I expect to end up close to 3400 calories burned for day through 24 hours. Give/take 200.

    That means I was focusing on fueling my body for 1800 calories before, I upped my goal yesterday pre-HRM arrival to 2100 anyway because I have had the theory my weight loss issue was related to under eating. Now, as I can see on my HRM, my body on a normal day is just wanting 3k+ calories and I was only giving it 1800, huge deficit. I lost 2-4x the weight when I ate 2200-2400 calories a day(and eating back most of my workout calories) than when I was eating well and working out hard and eating all my calories back.
    Wow! That is a huge difference! I have to get me a heart rate monitor!
This discussion has been closed.

Categories