Can someone explain this concept to me. I have been hearing more and more about it but I don't quite understand it. Maybe it just the way its told to me that makes me not understand it. This is how it basically has been told to me

If I eat 1400 calories a day and I go and run and burn say 350 calories I need to eat those 350 calories back when I am done running.

Now I don't understand coming back in the house and eating back what I just burned. I mean after running I may come back in and eat 100-150 of those calories but not the whole 350. I mean is there something I am missing or not understanding with this concept.

Not that I plan to change what has already been working for me. I am just trying to understand this concept. Thanks..
__________________

The basic math here is that to maintain your weight you have to take in as many calories if you burn. So if you burn "extra" you have to eat "extra" to keep the equation balanced. But you don't have to do any math, and you don't have to come back home after a run and try to calculate how much extra you burned and go eat.

It's just as simple as watching the scale. If you weigh less than you want to, you have to eat more. If you're happy with your weight, then you keep doing what you've been doing; and, if you weigh more than you want to you have to eat less and exercise more. There is no need to worry about more complicated math than that.

UNLESS, you have blood sugar issues, or are take exercising or dieting to an extreme. 1400 calories would be too low for a marathon runner, but may be right for you. If you're getting headaches or are dizzy or light headed after exercising, you might need to eat more during the day, or immediately after exercise but there's no reason that you have to be in any rush to "replace" burned calories.

Well, here is how I understand it:

To lose weight, the aim is to create a caloric deficit, which can be done in two ways: either by eating less calories or by exercising to up your caloric expense. So you could either, say, 250 calories less every day, or exercise until you burn 250 calories every day. If you combine these two ways, it's more efficient: with my example, you would then create a 500 calories deficit, and make your weight loss a little faster.

You *can* eat your calories back if you wish. But that would make things less efficient in terms of weight loss. So you don't needto do it.

(I'm not speaking of voluntarily starving oneself while over-exercising, of course! Only of creating a sensible deficit.)

It may be there is something missing in the explanation.

If your daily calorie burn, based on your metabolic rate, is, say, 1900 cals, and to lose weight you are eating 1400 cals, that would leave 500 cals per day deficit. So, in 1 week you would lose a pound, on average.

If you add to those 1900 cals the 350 you burned while running, then theoretically you could eat 1750 that day and still have a 500 cals deficit. So that's where the idea of "eating back your calories" comes from.

However, if your daily calore burn is 1550, and you burn 350 while running (which, by the way, is quite a run!) to bring yourself up to 1900 cals, then "eating back" those 350 cals (1400+350) would leave you a deficit of only 150 cals, which would mean a very slow rate of loss...

Some folks have to exercise in order to be able to eat more than 1200 calories, average, while losing weight, because their metabolic rate is lower.

Does that help?

P.S. Yeah, like Kery said! And kaplods. I had to move kaplods' post.

Jay

Thanks Jay, the move was a great idea.

need2loseinGA decided to delete her post and make it a thread (yes, good idea) and so then I moved yours, Colleen. So, all is straighented out now!

Wonder how many calories I burned... Hmmm...

Jay

Yeah I have yet to burn that many calories doing anything at one time. The only time I ever burn close to that is when I mow the grass. And thats because I use a push mower and mow a large piece of land.

All those explainations are clear as mud to me honestly. But I must say math is so not my strong suit. All I know is a eat about 1300-1400 calories. I do exercise and eat a smaller snack afterwards. But not all the calories burned.

Now I was reading some stuff after I posted this and some were sying that you really only need to eat the calories back when you are maintaining. Which that makes a lot more sense to me. When you are maintaining a weight you are no longer trying to loss so you don't need a defiect after exercising. So you eat the calories you burned so that you can maintain your current weight.

I am one of those that believes that you DON'T eat back those calories. I want to always create MORE of a deficit. Yes, I exercise for the toning, the heart benefits and all the fitness benefits as well, BUT, I most certainly want to burn more calories then I would by just doing my everyday stuff alone.

I NEVER eat back my calories. Not intentionally anyway . I mean I don't go and take a half hour walk and say, great now I can go eat an extra apple. I keep my calories burned and my calories eaten totally separate. I burn what I burn, I eat what I eat. Two separate issues, for me, that is.

I also don't go by any "calculators". IMO there is no way on earth that they can accurately know what I am burning. They are all estimates and I don't bother with them. But that's just me.

Now that I am maintaining, I also don't eat back my calories. Again, I keep it totally separate. Most people, not all of course, usually up their calories a bit in order to maintain.

Trial and error, IMO is the best way to go here. You pick a calorie amount, you do exercise. You follow it closely for a couple of weeks, track the results. If you are pleased with the results, you continue with what you are doing. If you were not satisfied with your rate of weight loss, you can either cut back your calories a bit or up the exercise or a combination of both.

That's why I think the scale has to be the guage as to whether you need to make any adjustments whatsover. Just because some table somewhere says that an activity burns 350 calories, doesn't mean that's what your body burned. It's only a guess. There's no way (at least for the average person) to do the exact math, and there's no reason to try. You just have to watch the scale, and use trial and error.

I actually don't eat back my calories, but for people who "start off" dieting, they do get SOME luck in losing weight while eating back the calories burned because when they go from being inactive and sedentary and switch to being active in exercise, they could still build muscle while eating back the calories. Exercising helps lose some fat, and it could also build muscle (though fat doesn't turn into muscle), which burns more energy. All in all though, most don't eat back the calories they'e burned as exercise has a wonderful side effect of killing the nasty cravings for junk food and stuff.

So do you all think this new Body Bugg thing might help in determining whether or not calories should be eaten back?

I may sometimes eat back SOME of what I burn, but only because I feel hungrier those days. Not out of trying to up my calories, but out of feeling satisfied. But I don't aim to eat my calories back. I actually want to burn calories and eating them back would seem counterproductive.

This question comes up frequently here.
There is NO REASON to eat back your exercise calories unless you are maintaining or trying to bulk up. Aside from the numerous health benefits, the point of exercising while dieting is to create a caloric deficit and to build muscle. You can build muscle while in caloric deficit if you are overweight or a beginner.

If you burn 300 calories then eat 300 extra calories, you will build muscle as long as you are doing resistance training, but you won't lose weight or fat unless you have a caloric deficit. You can do that by eating less or moving more. Eating less AND moving more is a whole lot faster and healthier!

Mel

I add back some of my calories, but I am what would be called an "extreme" exerciser --at least cardio wise. AND I am nursing a baby so I am careful not to create too large a deficit. Also, for me running is as much about performance as weight loss. Creating too large a deficit makes my next workout weak and wimpy. I need to stay strong.

So I consider a 4 mile run normal...I dont add that back
I would consider lifting weights normal...I dont add that back
I dont add back my yoga, my stroller walks with my kids or any "normal" activity

I do add back a little bit for longer runs. My rule was for every mile OVER a "normal"run I would add ~100 calories extra (which was still slightly a deficit - I probably burn 120-130/mile on average)

Now the truth is for most long runs at least some of that extra takes the form of a pre workout snack or a during workout gu or gatorade. And I would be ravenously hungry if I didnt.

I think it is silly to try to add back EVERY calorie, but I do see merit in having a rough idea on how much you burn through exercise on a consistant basis and making sure you are eating enough to sustain that. I have seen people who exercise to an extreme still eating 1200 calories a day. For most people this is not wise.

And pay attention on days you do EXTRA. If you go on a 6 hour hike, you NEED extra fuel and to try to do without is detrimental. But you dont need to go mathematical. If you are doing more than usual and you are HUNGRY then add a healthy snack.

I agree with everyone that it isn't necessary to add back calories unless you're going to the extreme with your exercise and you need the fuel. When I run more than 10 miles, for example, I need some extra calories. However, I DO sort of add back calories as an incentive to exercise, if that makes sense. I don't really need the incentive anymore, but it's become a habit. Here's how it works for me: I get 22 WW points per day, and that just doesn't feel like enough, so I do 26 instead ON DAYS I EXERCISE. I pretty much exercise every day, though, so I'm always doing 26 points. Those 4 "activity" points I add are nowhere near equal to the amount of calories I'm burning, though.