Eating back calories burnt

The idea on here is that MFP sets a caloric deficit for you already....so say to lose 1lb a week, you need to eat 1600 calories a day WITHOUT exercise.

So WITH exercise you get to eat more calories because you are burning them but still staying at a deficit.

I have different ideas about it and it's worked for me, I don't eat them back (or don't try to, I don't go OMG I HAVE TO EAT 400 CALORIES FOR A SNACK TONIGHT), but constantly eat throughout the day to fuel my body.

But it's finding what works for you, everyone is different. I understand the logic behind it, but what I do works for me.

The idea on here is that MFP sets a caloric deficit for you already....so say to lose 1lb a week, you need to eat 1600 calories a day WITHOUT exercise.

So WITH exercise you get to eat more calories because you are burning them but still staying at a deficit.

I have different ideas about it and it's worked for me, I don't eat them back (or don't try to, I don't go OMG I HAVE TO EAT 400 CALORIES FOR A SNACK TONIGHT), but constantly eat throughout the day to fuel my body.

But it's finding what works for you, everyone is different. I understand the logic behind it, but what I do works for me.

I think the reason they don't include exercise calories in your original deficit is so if you end up having to skip your work out you didn't over eat and eat your deficit. You only eat them if you do work out. That way you are safe no matter what. And as for working out. I for one want to be thin, sleek and buff when I reach my goal weight. And the only way to achieve that is to build some muscle and shape. And I get to eat more there have been days when I was just starving so I worked out a little more so I could have a snack. I have found having a 1000 calorie a day deficit is a lot easier if I burn 2800 and eat 1800 then to burn 2200 and only eat 1200. I can live on 1500-1800 a day but not 1200

Just eating at a deficit can burn muscle as well as fat, which ultimately lowers your metabolism. Work out to preserve muscle and eat enough to keep the furnace cooking!

Plus, all those lovely extra calories give you more food choices. Makes it easier to stick to a food plan!

I usually do most of my exercise in the evening and I don't feel the need to eat more during the day but then my net intake can be between 700-900 for a few days in a row and I don't want this to affect my weight loss by it being too low

I sometimes eat 2300 calories, but in my training for 1/2 Marathons, and strength etc, I sometimes NET that low too. It doesn't effect me at all. Besides, it's not a day to day thing, more like 60-day to 60-day period.

So i'm trying to get my head round this, If you are meant to eat back the calories you burn then what is the point in exercising?

If your *sole* objective is weight loss then you're right - aerobic exercise and eating the same (or likely more) calories to compensate is a waste of time. In fact aerobic exercise in general isn't great for weight loss,

As you'll see, some people on here exercise like it's going out of fashion just in order to be able to eat more.

Everyone has their own ideas about this, but once I started upping calories and eating back calories, my weigh loss stayed consistent, perhaps even better than when I was eating 1200 a day.

So i'm trying to get my head round this, If you are meant to eat back the calories you burn then what is the point in exercising?

If your *sole* objective is weight loss then you're right - aerobic exercise and eating the same (or likely more) calories to compensate is a waste of time. In fact aerobic exercise in general isn't great for weight loss,

As you'll see, some people on here exercise like it's going out of fashion just in order to be able to eat more.

I don't *understand* all the physiology, but have found that exercise burns calories (according to HRM). My body needs the additional fuel to work efficiently. I agree, it would seem if you move at a faster rate, you would burn more but nothing I have read tells me this.

Keeping HR in the 65-70% range of max is supposed to be best for burning fat. Though my poor little brain struggles with this concept~~ the scale, my clothing, and my body composition tell me that this is true. I am not fighting them, because all of them can't be wrong!

That said, I know that the ice cream sundae (SMALL with strawberries and pecans), that I enjoyed last evening was probably not my best food choice of the day, but I have made way worse choices when I was doing nothing to counteract the effects of said treat.

Another good choice I made last night was to exercise on the elliptical for 47 minutes (would have done this with or without the ice cream), 35 minutes on the treadmill (also would have done this) and lifting for 20-25 mins.

I ate back my exercise calories and ended the day with the same deficit I would have had eating 1200 and sitting on my butt all afternoon/evening. I believe that the choices I made were good ones, and this is a typical day (minus the ice cream) for me.

I have lost weight pretty consistently since beginning MFP in February and I am feeling much healthier than I have in years. I won't mess with success!

Each of the users here is entitled to his or her own ideas (that's what makes it fun to be here!), but as for me...I will have a treat, when I have earned one and continue to enjoy the benefit of exercise and a healthy lifestyle!!