Calories consumed vs. Net calories
 

Hi Guys!!

I have been stick to 1200-1300 a day (depending on what my weight is - I let livestrong calculate it for me). However, I have a question for some of you that have lost a lot of weight or have had great success so far...

Did you eat back your calories after exercising to get back to your recommended amount? Will not eating that amount (when exercise counts are deducted) cause me to plateau earlier? Or should I just ignore the exercise and stick to 1200-1300 calories consumed?

I would love to hear your advice!!! :wave:

I was wondering the same thing. I eat about 1500 calories a day and I never eat back my calories. I average about 2 pounds a week loss. Some days when I work out with my PT, I might seem a little hungrier and eat a little more fruit or something but I don't eat back all the calories I burned but I am fairly new at this so I would like to know how other people have done as well.

I never eat back calories.

I don't eat back calories, but I also don't restrict as much as you do either. There are times I do eat around 1200-1300, but that is in summer when it's hot and I don't feel like eating as much. Other times a year I aim for 1450. Winter seems I tend to be around 1600 a lot.

If you are really hungry, then you should maybe increase your caloric intake a bit. At your weight, you don't need to restrict so far and you will still see great results on the scale and it might make it easier to stick to it.

I have never heard of eating back your calories. To lose weight you need more calories out than in, so to me it doesnt even make sense. I try to eat 1200-1300 a day with 1 hour exercise and I lose about a pound a week.

I agree with berryblondeboys. At your weight I think you should be eating more like 1600 a day. You don´t want to starve yourself!

I eat back some. I have been working on keeping my net above 1000 lately. On rest days I eat about 1250. Feb was a super month for me for losses so it's working for now. If it stops working I will do something else :)

Your suggestion (to eat more to lose weight in a healthier manner in the long run) is exactly what "eating back" calories is all about. The theory being that if you are very active, exercise a lot, then you need to eat more (even to lose weight) than someone who is far less active.


"Eating back" is just a way to (theoretically) keep the net calorie deficit consistent (a zero deficit if you're wanting to maintain your weight or a specific deficit of say 500 calories per day to lose one pound per week).

So if you are losing weight on 1500 calories per day and start adding in exercise that burns 500 extra calories, you can "eat back" some or all of those 500 calories and continue to lose weight.

There's no real consensus on how much of a deficit is "too much of a deficit" and even whether there's any such thing. (Personally, I believe there is. There's a point at which eating too little becomes unproductive).

To some degree we all are "eating back" calories, because otherwise, we would all just stop eating entirely until we lose all of our excess weight. But most of us find that eating too few calories doesn't work very well, at the very least because of hunger, and often because of other issues like fatigue, and many unfortunate risks associated with too-low calorie intake (such as hair loss, diminished resistance to infection, gallstones and other gallbladder problems, even cardiac damage).

In terms of calorie intake, how low is too low (and whether there even is a too low) depends upon many factors including your activity level. If you're extremely sedentary, you can safely and comfortably eat less than if you're extremely active (in a nutshell that's what "eating back" calories is about - making sure that while exercising and being active, that you not try to reduce your calorie level too far).

"Eating back" exercise calories (but still maintaining a calorie deficit sufficient to lose weight) is one technique people use to insure that they don't "starve themselves." (Although starvation is a poor term to use, since we're not really literally talking about starvation here, but rather optimizing weight loss without adding other risks such as cravings, hunger, hair loss, gallstones and all the other potentially nasty risks of extreme calorie restriction).

The problem with eating back calories, is that you never know if you're really burning as many calories as you think you are. The online calculators are notoriously unreliable, they reflect averages but they may not reflect your metabolism, so only by experimenting can you determine how much you can eat while exercising.

I think that it makes more sense to generically experiment with different calorie levels than to try to determine exactly how many calories you're burning with exercise and then try to eat some or all of those back while still maintaining a deficit.

A lot of people try (and some even enjoy the process of) determining and calculating the exact "math" of their weight loss. I've tried to do so in the past, but I never found it productive. Instead, I'd drive myself bonkers trying to make my weight loss match the math.

A more "by ear" experimentation approach works better for me.

All of you have provided excellent advice!! Basically what I am taking out of this is that it is all about balance, and not to be so tight on the calories. I think I do need to give myself more of a range (I was literally tracking to the nearest 10 calories... OCD much?? Haha). Also, I need to listen more to my body... I won't focus so much on eating all of my calories back, but eating if I am hungry, etc.

I'm sure many of you can understand, it can be difficult to get to even 1250 for the day, since the foods that fuel my body best are often much lower in calories (and fat and sugar). I feel like I am eating MORE than I used to (quantity wise), but less calories.

I'm so glad I have found 3FC... I can't wait to reach some of the milestones that you all have hit!! :flow1: