high BF% and not eating back exercise calories

Options
TXHunny84
TXHunny84 Posts: 503 Member
edited December 2024 in Health and Weight Loss
I was told that if you have a high body fat percent you don't NEED to eat back you exercise calories (unless you feel tired and exhausted and need the energy from the food) because you have the extra fat store on your body for energy. That makes sence...but at what body fat percent should you always eat back your exercise calories?.... I am a girl, 5'6", 166lbs and 30% BF.... At what body fat percentage should I/people always eat back exercise calories?

Replies

  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    another way of looking at it is that your fat reserves may release up to 30 calories per day per pound, so if you want to fuel a deficit of (say) 600 calories you need 20 lbs of fat on board to do it. At 166 and 30% BF you should be fine, if you're heading for say 20% then by the time you arrive at 145 you'll still have 29 lbs so should be ok even then.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,297 Member
    another way of looking at it is that your fat reserves may release up to 30 calories per day per pound, so if you want to fuel a deficit of (say) 600 calories you need 20 lbs of fat on board to do it. At 166 and 30% BF you should be fine, if you're heading for say 20% then by the time you arrive at 145 you'll still have 29 lbs so should be ok even then.

    As this states, "may release up to ...", to be on the safe side, don't eat below 1200 Net calories. If you MFP goal is higher than 1200, you may be okay only eating enough to get your back to 1200 Net.

    So if your goal is 1400 cals and you burn 600 MFP will tell you to eat 2000, but you should be fine as long as you eat 1800 (1200+600).
  • TXHunny84
    TXHunny84 Posts: 503 Member
    another way of looking at it is that your fat reserves may release up to 30 calories per day per pound, so if you want to fuel a deficit of (say) 600 calories you need 20 lbs of fat on board to do it. At 166 and 30% BF you should be fine, if you're heading for say 20% then by the time you arrive at 145 you'll still have 29 lbs so should be ok even then.

    29?...of fat?... So I should still be ok even then to not eat back exercise calories?... When would i be under 20lbs of fat and have to eat back exercise calories?...
  • waldo56
    waldo56 Posts: 1,861 Member
    another way of looking at it is that your fat reserves may release up to 30 calories per day per pound, so if you want to fuel a deficit of (say) 600 calories you need 20 lbs of fat on board to do it. At 166 and 30% BF you should be fine, if you're heading for say 20% then by the time you arrive at 145 you'll still have 29 lbs so should be ok even then.

    I've never heard that number before but I really fits with my experience. Every time I hit a plateau because of too big of a deficit, it was at almost precisely 30 calories per pound of fat.
  • TXHunny84
    TXHunny84 Posts: 503 Member
    another way of looking at it is that your fat reserves may release up to 30 calories per day per pound, so if you want to fuel a deficit of (say) 600 calories you need 20 lbs of fat on board to do it. At 166 and 30% BF you should be fine, if you're heading for say 20% then by the time you arrive at 145 you'll still have 29 lbs so should be ok even then.

    As this states, "may release up to ...", to be on the safe side, don't eat below 1200 Net calories. If you MFP goal is higher than 1200, you may be okay only eating enough to get your back to 1200 Net.

    So if your goal is 1400 cals and you burn 600 MFP will tell you to eat 2000, but you should be fine as long as you eat 1800 (1200+600).

    So.....you're saying to eat back the exercise calories anyway even if I have a high amount of body fat that will be giving me energy to run on?
  • TXHunny84
    TXHunny84 Posts: 503 Member
    so it's ok to not eat back exercise calories until I get to ...what weight then?...
  • cmccorma
    cmccorma Posts: 203 Member
    This is one of those big debates on here and you will get people who say yes, eat them back, or no don't. I would say try it one way for a while and if that is not working after a few weeks (our bodies take time to get used to stuff), then try it the other way! I don't eat mine back, but I don't exercise very hard. Just walking for 30-60 minutes, 4 times a week or so.
  • TXHunny84
    TXHunny84 Posts: 503 Member
    ok thanks :)
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    so it's ok to not eat back exercise calories until I get to ...what weight then?...

    Not eating back exercise calories means running a bigger deficit than you set in MFP initially, so for example if you set a weight loss goal of 1 lb/week it subtracts 500 calories to meet that. If you exercise another 200 and don't eat them back you get a bigger deficit - 700.

    At some point your fat reserves may not be able to supply the missing energy, so as you lose weight eating back proportionally more calories would make sense.

    20 lbs of fat should fuel 600 of deficit, from what you said you would have well over that at a total weight of 145.

    You said 166 and 30% fat, which is about 50 of fat and 116 of not-fat.
    At 145 that would be 116 of non-fat and 29 of fat. 20% fat. Fairly lean for a woman.
  • TXHunny84
    TXHunny84 Posts: 503 Member
    so it's ok to not eat back exercise calories until I get to ...what weight then?...

    Not eating back exercise calories means running a bigger deficit than you set in MFP initially, so for example if you set a weight loss goal of 1 lb/week it subtracts 500 calories to meet that. If you exercise another 200 and don't eat them back you get a bigger deficit - 700.

    At some point your fat reserves may not be able to supply the missing energy, so as you lose weight eating back proportionally more calories would make sense.

    20 lbs of fat should fuel 600 of deficit, from what you said you would have well over that at a total weight of 145.

    You said 166 and 30% fat, which is about 50 of fat and 116 of not-fat.
    At 145 that would be 116 of non-fat and 29 of fat. 20% fat. Fairly lean for a woman.

    Oh wow! THANK YOU!! IDK how you got those numbers but thank you!! hahahaha
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,297 Member
    so it's ok to not eat back exercise calories until I get to ...what weight then?...

    Not eating back exercise calories means running a bigger deficit than you set in MFP initially, so for example if you set a weight loss goal of 1 lb/week it subtracts 500 calories to meet that. If you exercise another 200 and don't eat them back you get a bigger deficit - 700.

    At some point your fat reserves may not be able to supply the missing energy, so as you lose weight eating back proportionally more calories would make sense.

    20 lbs of fat should fuel 600 of deficit, from what you said you would have well over that at a total weight of 145.

    You said 166 and 30% fat, which is about 50 of fat and 116 of not-fat.
    At 145 that would be 116 of non-fat and 29 of fat. 20% fat. Fairly lean for a woman.

    In theory yes, but some of the non fat weight would be lost as losing fat as well (even if it is not muscle loss) So if they lost 21 lbs there is a good chance between 1 and 7 lbs of lean mass would be lost which would have them at a higher BF% at 145 then you calculated.

    Lets say 3lbs of lbm is lost and 18lbs of muscle (6:1 ratio which is pretty good) that would have the OP. So at 145, LBM would be 113, which would leave 32lbs of fat for a BF% of 22% (32/145).
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    there is a good chance between 1 and 7 lbs of lean mass would be lost which would have them at a higher BF% at 145 then you calculated.

    yeah, fair enough. Leaves them with even more fat reserve to fuel the deficit so I was on the safe side.
  • TXHunny84
    TXHunny84 Posts: 503 Member
    So I could keep my higher deficit and none exercise calorie eating :) good to know! Thanks!! :)
This discussion has been closed.

Categories