“Don't ‘eat back’ exercise calories”

[Anonymous]

Three weeks ago someone gave me this advice on my post about the scale not budging and I am here to thank you! This was it! This was the trick! I’m officially down 6lb since I took your advice and feel better than ever. The scale is now moving a few ounces a day. Thank you! Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Isn't that obvious if you're trying to lose weight? You need to be at a deficit of 500-1000 calories a day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't that obvious if you're trying to lose weight? You need to be at a deficit of 500-1000 calories a day.

Yes. I was already in a deficit, but wasn’t seeing results. I was advised by a trainer to stay at 1300 calories a day. I was adding the calories burned through exercise and “eating” them, though still technically “consuming” 1300 calories. I’ve stopped “eating” the exercise back and the weight is steadily dropping a bit every day.

It wasn’t obvious to me, no, so maybe this success story will help someone else.

[Anonymous]

Ya you only need to eat back exercise calories if you are doing seriously strenuous exercise for an extended duration of time (1.5 hrs+) , think marathon or triathlon training. Most people are not even close to burring enough calories to need to eat more and things like watches that tell you calories burned are incredibly inaccurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Three weeks ago someone gave me this advice on my post about the scale not budging and I am here to thank you! This was it! This was the trick! I’m officially down 6lb since I took your advice and feel better than ever. The scale is now moving a few ounces a day. Thank you! Thank you!

Yay! Think that was me, so happy it helped you! Once I figured it out it helped me so happy to pay forward.

[Anonymous]

The "calorie burn" reflected on watches/devices/machines is also wildly inaccurate. If you are trying to lose, "eating back" is a super common reason for stalls.

Keep going, OP!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Three weeks ago someone gave me this advice on my post about the scale not budging and I am here to thank you! This was it! This was the trick! I’m officially down 6lb since I took your advice and feel better than ever. The scale is now moving a few ounces a day. Thank you! Thank you!

Yay! Think that was me, so happy it helped you! Once I figured it out it helped me so happy to pay forward.

Such an obvious solution that had never occurred to me. Thanks again, so much!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The "calorie burn" reflected on watches/devices/machines is also wildly inaccurate. If you are trying to lose, "eating back" is a super common reason for stalls.

Keep going, OP!

Thanks! Definitely feeling motivated now!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Three weeks ago someone gave me this advice on my post about the scale not budging and I am here to thank you! This was it! This was the trick! I’m officially down 6lb since I took your advice and feel better than ever. The scale is now moving a few ounces a day. Thank you! Thank you!

Happy for you OP. As with all thinks weight loss related, it takes discipline not to "eat back" the calories.

[Anonymous]

Wow, dcum being useful for once! Amazing!!

But really, thats great news op. Keep it up!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't that obvious if you're trying to lose weight? You need to be at a deficit of 500-1000 calories a day.

Yes. I was already in a deficit, but wasn’t seeing results. I was advised by a trainer to stay at 1300 calories a day. I was adding the calories burned through exercise and “eating” them, though still technically “consuming” 1300 calories. I’ve stopped “eating” the exercise back and the weight is steadily dropping a bit every day.

It wasn’t obvious to me, no, so maybe this success story will help someone else.

I'm sorry. This explanation is confusing me a bit. So you were eating 1300+ day and now just 1300?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't that obvious if you're trying to lose weight? You need to be at a deficit of 500-1000 calories a day.

Yes. I was already in a deficit, but wasn’t seeing results. I was advised by a trainer to stay at 1300 calories a day. I was adding the calories burned through exercise and “eating” them, though still technically “consuming” 1300 calories. I’ve stopped “eating” the exercise back and the weight is steadily dropping a bit every day.

It wasn’t obvious to me, no, so maybe this success story will help someone else.

I'm sorry. This explanation is confusing me a bit. So you were eating 1300+ day and now just 1300?

Not OP, but sounds like they said to eat 1300 calories a day. She exercised and burned 400 calories, so she would eat 1300+400. Even though she "burned off" the 400 calories, it wasnt enough to lose weight. Now she is eating 1300/day no matter how much exercise, and making a difference on the scale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ya you only need to eat back exercise calories if you are doing seriously strenuous exercise for an extended duration of time (1.5 hrs+) , think marathon or triathlon training. Most people are not even close to burring enough calories to need to eat more and things like watches that tell you calories burned are incredibly inaccurate.

This is the correct answer. And, other than a bike power meter, none of the other calculators are correct. I train for middle distance triathlon (half and 100KM), and I do eat around my workouts and fuel them, but I don’t count anything. I watch the scale to make sure I’m not dropping weight eat real food. This year I’ve got it really tuned and I’ve been hovering right where I want for months.

I was on my bike this morning and then running after. I’m about 1800 in the hole today and I won’t really go out of my way to “eat that back.” Though, as noted above, I am very intentional about eating, especially for injury prevention reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't that obvious if you're trying to lose weight? You need to be at a deficit of 500-1000 calories a day.

Yes. I was already in a deficit, but wasn’t seeing results. I was advised by a trainer to stay at 1300 calories a day. I was adding the calories burned through exercise and “eating” them, though still technically “consuming” 1300 calories. I’ve stopped “eating” the exercise back and the weight is steadily dropping a bit every day.

It wasn’t obvious to me, no, so maybe this success story will help someone else.

I'm sorry. This explanation is confusing me a bit. So you were eating 1300+ day and now just 1300?

Not OP, but sounds like they said to eat 1300 calories a day. She exercised and burned 400 calories, so she would eat 1300+400. Even though she "burned off" the 400 calories, it wasnt enough to lose weight. Now she is eating 1300/day no matter how much exercise, and making a difference on the scale.

OP here. Exactly this, thank you for phrasing it better than I could!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't that obvious if you're trying to lose weight? You need to be at a deficit of 500-1000 calories a day.

Yes. I was already in a deficit, but wasn’t seeing results. I was advised by a trainer to stay at 1300 calories a day. I was adding the calories burned through exercise and “eating” them, though still technically “consuming” 1300 calories. I’ve stopped “eating” the exercise back and the weight is steadily dropping a bit every day.

It wasn’t obvious to me, no, so maybe this success story will help someone else.

You weren't in a deficit. You were not consuming 1300 calories. You were at more and eating at maintenance.