[189bgone]

I was wondering if you all eat the calories you burned by excercising? When i was on WW, they had you eat the points you "burned off" from working out. So i was wondering what every one else does.

[Lyria]

When I was losing weight I tried not to eat my workout calories because exercise usually created the desired deficit.

These days maintaining I am more likely to eat a little more (or at least allow myself to eat a little more) if I put in an especially heavy workout e.g when I go running after work I may have a slightly bigger dinner or allow myself a small treat with my 8:30pm cup of tea.

It's a matter of balance for me really - If I want to lose weight I wont eat the calories burnt in exercise. If I am maintaining or just improving fitness then yes, sometimes I will.

Liv

[srmb60]

Liv pretty much said what I was thinking. In order to lose weight, you must have a calorie deficit. You can do that by either eating less, moving more or both.

Imagine a glass bowl of water. Drip in 1500 mls per day but scoop out 1800 mls. There will soon be less in the bowl right? If you scooped out the 1800 but put 300 back, the water level in the bowl would stay the same. Right?

[HarpoChicoGroucho]

Never. I always see it as counterproductive. I know I'm getting fitter and working my heart, but if I burn 300 calories, I want to keep those 300 calories burned. I don't want to put them right back. BUT, when I have a vigorous workout, and I get physically hungry, I eat, but usually vegetables or fruit.

[Flying Betty]

I try to eat according to hunger, only keeping a vague eye on calories to check myself so I think I eat more when I exercise if only because I'm hungrier. Besides, right after you workout your metabolism is boosted temporarily so it's a good time to be eating.

[BlueToBlue]

Generally, no, I don't eat the calories I burn. For one thing, I don't trust the online tools or the machines to accurately compute this. Some don't even ask for your weight and none ask for body fat %. Since muscle burns calories more efficiently than fat, I just don't see how they can be accurate without this info. Also, the online tools rarely ask for the intensity of your exercise. For example, I always run at an incline but the online tools never factor this into the calories I burn when running; many don't even ask for distance or speed. Somewhere there is a link to an article that says that the machines are often off by 10-30%.

But, over time, as I have increased the amount of exercise I do, I've also increased my calorie intake. I've gone from exercising only 3 days week to 7 days a week. My workouts are also longer now and I'm working out at a higher intensity. I increased my daily intake in 100 calories increments over this same period. I started at 1200 calories per day. After a couple of months, I decided I was exercising enough that I could increase to 1300 per day. Then about a month ago I really ramped up my exercise and increased my calories to 1400 per day (I actually owe thanks to Liv for suggesting that I eat a little more when responding to one of my posts a couple of weeks ago when I was at a very hungry low point--it was definitely the right decision).

But if I have a day where I exercise more than usual, I still limit myself to 1400 calories. Likewise, if I have an off-plan day in terms of calories, I generally just do my usual amount of exercise--I don't try to make up for it with more exercise.

- Barbara

[hockeyfan7]

One lady I know is losing 4-5 lbs a week right now. And she weighs in the high 290s. If you look at her food diary, she's eating about 1500 calories a day, but she's exercising back off about 1100 of those. She's doing 2-3 hours of exercise a day. So she's only giving her body an average of 350 calories a day according to the graph. That's not enough to survive on.

I had a Body Gem test done to test my resting metabolic rate. It told me I needed 2,190 calories to maintain my current weight and perform normal bodily functions. If I eat only 1200 which is the minimum women are supposed to consume and then I exercise off another 300 to 400 which is my usual in an hour in the gym, then I'm only giving my body 800 or 900 calories a day. That doesn't sound like enough over time.

[Meg]

I had a Body Gem test done to test my resting metabolic rate. It told me I needed 2,190 calories to maintain my current weight and perform normal bodily functions. If I eat only 1200 which is the minimum women are supposed to consume and then I exercise off another 300 to 400 which is my usual in an hour in the gym, then I'm only giving my body 800 or 900 calories a day. That doesn't sound like enough over time.

Hmm ... when you stop and think about it, isn't this exactly where stored body fat comes into play? When you're only eating part of the calories that your body needs to survive (in other words, creating a calorie deficit), it's forced to utilize its stored calories (fat) for energy. In a nutshell, that's how we get rid of stored fat and lose weight.

So your body wouldn't be forced to survive on only 800 or 900 calories a day -- it would be surviving on those calories PLUS whatever stored calories it needs to meet your energy needs for the day.

The reason that 1200 is often given as the lowest you should go in calories is that it's almost impossible to meet your daily nutritional needs (protein, vitamins, fiber, good fats etc) with fewer calories. Anyone who chooses to eat less than 1200 calories per day probably needs medical supervision to make sure they're adequately nourished.

But so long as you can meet your nutritional needs through your daily calorie intake, your body will take care of the rest of its energy needs by burning stored fat. During the year that I was losing weight, I ate between 1200 and 1600 calories per day and burned off at least 800 per day in exercise. In response to that calorie deficit, my body used up an average of 2.4 pounds of stored fat per week. It wasn't surviving on just 400 - 800 calories per day of food minus exercise; in reality it was surviving on 400 - 800 calories plus about 1200 calories of stored fat per day, for a total of 1600 - 2000 calories per day.

So back to the original poster's question - if you eat to compensate for the calories you burn during exercise, then you're essentially negating the exercise and making it harder to create the calorie deficit necessary to burn your stored fat. So it makes the job of weight loss harder.

My two cents!

PS - WW gives you one Point (about 50 calories) for every 100 calories of exercise you do, so you're still creating a deficit with exercise. They're just letting you eat a little more when you work out .