Should we really be eating back the calories we burn??

13

Replies

  • Kalex1975
    Kalex1975 Posts: 427 Member
    heybales wrote: »
    Usually they will do that on your printout then, along with estimated TDEE.
    Be interesting to see which group asks more questions to get that potentially better.

    Cunningham RMR or Katch BMR were top rated in last comparison study I saw, but that was years ago and haven't looked again.

    I researched because my readout used one I'd never heard before, and it ended up being a very underestimating one that was even then normally used for females, but even then not great unless in certain BF% range. Their system must have been hard set, because my printout correctly said male, so if it was using different calc's, it should have done so. Nelson I think it was.

    Thanks again!

    I found a nice website that has several of the formulas with explanations. I'm sure it is known in these circles, but just in case...

    http://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/
  • arussell134
    arussell134 Posts: 463 Member
    A lot of people seem to poo-poo eating them back, but I often find I need to. I’m a distance runner and my running tends to make me hungry. If I don’t get enough fuel, I just don’t feel strong on my runs. This may mean I don’t lose quickly, but I’m ok with that.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Many people that do aren't even aware of the fact MFP is doing things differently than every other website they've used, or diet plan from a trainer or nutritionist - they just don't fully appreciate the whole concept in the first place.

    Others do mostly long spans of walking or other low calorie burn exercise, which my prior post on logging what you burn above and beyond accounted for, explains why that leads to bad results in their experience.

    Others have no idea how good their workouts could be with better body transformation, not doing them on huge-deficit bodies. So their mediocre workouts don't burn as much anyway, and as a result of it.

    Others have such terrible food logging they think it's an inflated calorie burn rather than underestimated eating. And when they don't log exercise it works out anyway.
  • ladyhusker39
    ladyhusker39 Posts: 1,406 Member
    I get a good 300 calories a day from my low intensity walking and I eat back every one of them.

    Well, you're not the only one who disagrees with me, apparently. I got 7 "woos" on my post. In any case, you soon know if your approach is working from the scale (that evil overlord of overindulgence).

    However, I do understand that you can't just take a stroll around the block and think you've burned 300 calories. I get mine from about 5 miles/day. After reading your comments again, I'm thinking that's probably more along the lines of what you meant.
  • iWishMyNameWasRebel
    iWishMyNameWasRebel Posts: 174 Member
    I don't eat them back unless I find myself genuinely really hungry (not the ooooo I'd LOVE a burger hungry, but the kind where you literally will eat anything hungry). I tried always eating them back but all that did was teach me to eat whether I was genuinely hungry or not, and I don't need that.
  • Evamutt
    Evamutt Posts: 2,261 Member
    I've always eaten most of them back (80%) & still lost weight
  • CarvedTones
    CarvedTones Posts: 2,340 Member
    edited March 2018
    I am going to have to start doing it. I mostly just walk, but a couple of miles most days and five miles others. While losing, it was a bonus; my loss rate was just a little better than calculated. Trying to maintain a stable weight, I am still losing faster than I want to. That's okay for a little while just to get a better cushion (which is why I am still trying to lose slowly as I stabilize) but I don't want to go too low or too fast.
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,088 Member
    I have my profile set to maintain sedentary. Fit-bit gives me burns of 900-1100 a day! Now I am far from sedentary in my actually life, but am I right in figuring that would be more accurate than trying to decide if I am lightly active and just deal with my base maintenance plus movement?
  • kgirlhart
    kgirlhart Posts: 4,951 Member
    edited March 2018
    @psychod787 If you have your fitbit synced with mfp it won't really matter what you set your activity level to. The adjustment will be the difference between what mfp thinks you will burn (based on activity level) and what fitbit shows that you actually burn. If you set to sedentary but are not really sedentary then you will get a larger adjustment. If you set to lightly active your adjustment won't be as high, but the overall calorie goal will be the same. If you set to active but are not really active then you will get a negative adjustment. Just be sure you have negative adjustments turned on.

    edited; typo
  • psychod787
    psychod787 Posts: 4,088 Member
    kgirlhart wrote: »
    @psychod787 If you have your fitbit synced with mfp it won't really matter what you set your activity level to. The adjustment will be the difference between what mfp thinks you will burn (based on activity level) and what fitbit shows that you actually burn. If you set to sedentary but are not really sedentary then you will get a larger adjustment. If you set to lightly active your adjustment won't be as high, but the overall calorie goal will be the same. If you set to active but are not really active then you will get a negative adjustment. Just be sure you have negative adjustments turned on.

    edited; typo

    hmmm.. I wonder how accurate the fit-bit is for someone who has lost weight? thanks for the answer!
  • Zodikosis
    Zodikosis Posts: 149 Member
    I eat all of mine back and have lost more than 30 lbs (165 - > 135). You just have to be honest and meticulous.
  • kgirlhart
    kgirlhart Posts: 4,951 Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    kgirlhart wrote: »
    @psychod787 If you have your fitbit synced with mfp it won't really matter what you set your activity level to. The adjustment will be the difference between what mfp thinks you will burn (based on activity level) and what fitbit shows that you actually burn. If you set to sedentary but are not really sedentary then you will get a larger adjustment. If you set to lightly active your adjustment won't be as high, but the overall calorie goal will be the same. If you set to active but are not really active then you will get a negative adjustment. Just be sure you have negative adjustments turned on.

    edited; typo

    hmmm.. I wonder how accurate the fit-bit is for someone who has lost weight? thanks for the answer!

    You'll just have to try it for a few weeks and see how it works for you. My fitbit underestimated my calories and it took me a while to stop losing weight. I've seen people who say it overestimated and some say it is spot on.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    kgirlhart wrote: »
    @psychod787 If you have your fitbit synced with mfp it won't really matter what you set your activity level to. The adjustment will be the difference between what mfp thinks you will burn (based on activity level) and what fitbit shows that you actually burn. If you set to sedentary but are not really sedentary then you will get a larger adjustment. If you set to lightly active your adjustment won't be as high, but the overall calorie goal will be the same. If you set to active but are not really active then you will get a negative adjustment. Just be sure you have negative adjustments turned on.

    edited; typo

    hmmm.. I wonder how accurate the fit-bit is for someone who has lost weight? thanks for the answer!

    As long as you have told it you weigh less - it adjusts your base calorie burn (BMR) and active calorie burn since moving less mass around.

    What it might not pick up on is the fact your stride length may increase with ease of leg movement - so it thinks you went less distance and burned less calories.

    But usually, your avg daily pace stride doesn't change that much - but it could.

    As to accuracy - depends on how much you do it's going to have bad estimates on compared to general activity level.

    You could be very active with general movements daily.
    And then it's inflated for 3 x 20 min lifting weekly - hardly a pebble in the water in the scheme of things.

    You could be very sedentary with daily movements.
    And then it's grossly underestimating 3 x 3 hr bike rides weekly - now you have a big rock making waves.

    So it just depends.

    If workouts are neither long nor intense (which is the least accuracy of it) - then great chance of accuracy with good stride length measurement for walking.
  • CarvedTones
    CarvedTones Posts: 2,340 Member
    I wonder about the accuracy of my FitBit knock off. I know the mileage estimate is very accurate because I walk some routes I used to run with gps tracking; when I walk my my 3 mile route, it registers very close to 3 miles. I weigh 162 pounds. Right now, the watch and app say 9458 steps, 4.23 miles and 384 calories. Does that seem about right? I am 5'8", so my steps per mile may be different than others. I haven't been eating back calories, but I need to start since I am in my maintenance range and really haven't adjusted my calories high enough yet. I am kind of afraid to because of previous failures at maintenance, but I don't want to go much lower.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,455 Member
    psychod787 wrote: »
    kgirlhart wrote: »
    @psychod787 If you have your fitbit synced with mfp it won't really matter what you set your activity level to. The adjustment will be the difference between what mfp thinks you will burn (based on activity level) and what fitbit shows that you actually burn. If you set to sedentary but are not really sedentary then you will get a larger adjustment. If you set to lightly active your adjustment won't be as high, but the overall calorie goal will be the same. If you set to active but are not really active then you will get a negative adjustment. Just be sure you have negative adjustments turned on.

    edited; typo

    hmmm.. I wonder how accurate the fit-bit is for someone who has lost weight? thanks for the answer!

    I lost the weight I wanted to lose and am now maintaining while using my FitBit and eating back exercise adjustments.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    I wonder about the accuracy of my FitBit knock off. I know the mileage estimate is very accurate because I walk some routes I used to run with gps tracking; when I walk my my 3 mile route, it registers very close to 3 miles. I weigh 162 pounds. Right now, the watch and app say 9458 steps, 4.23 miles and 384 calories. Does that seem about right? I am 5'8", so my steps per mile may be different than others. I haven't been eating back calories, but I need to start since I am in my maintenance range and really haven't adjusted my calories high enough yet. I am kind of afraid to because of previous failures at maintenance, but I don't want to go much lower.

    Survey says.....
    https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs

    Actually, without time - can't say as accurately.

    Though roughly estimated about 100 per mile, very rough.

    If 4.23 in 1 hr - 463 cal.

    Now, if your device is like the Mi - it only gives what it figures as above and beyond, no base - so very confusing for a daily thing, and can't sync with anything else that works with a base expected.
  • CarvedTones
    CarvedTones Posts: 2,340 Member
    edited March 2018
    heybales wrote: »
    I wonder about the accuracy of my FitBit knock off. I know the mileage estimate is very accurate because I walk some routes I used to run with gps tracking; when I walk my my 3 mile route, it registers very close to 3 miles. I weigh 162 pounds. Right now, the watch and app say 9458 steps, 4.23 miles and 384 calories. Does that seem about right? I am 5'8", so my steps per mile may be different than others. I haven't been eating back calories, but I need to start since I am in my maintenance range and really haven't adjusted my calories high enough yet. I am kind of afraid to because of previous failures at maintenance, but I don't want to go much lower.

    Survey says.....
    https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs

    Actually, without time - can't say as accurately.

    Though roughly estimated about 100 per mile, very rough.

    If 4.23 in 1 hr - 463 cal.

    Now, if your device is like the Mi - it only gives what it figures as above and beyond, no base - so very confusing for a daily thing, and can't sync with anything else that works with a base expected.

    I have really thrown a wrench in the works today, but this sort of thing happens. I mowed the lawn with a walk behind (self propelled, but that doesn't mean you never push it). 11947 steps. about 7400 were a long walk this morning and 4500 mowing the lawn. Estimated miles 5,34. Estimated burn 485. Time 119 minutes, so basically 2 hours, which is about right; 7400 steps on earlier walk in about an hour and 4500 steps mowing lawn in about an hour. The tough thing about that is that I probably burned more mowing than walking, even though they were both about the same time and walking had lots more steps.

    It does have an app - VeryFitPro. It tracks over time so that I have my totals and average for the week, month and year.
  • pkweier
    pkweier Posts: 349 Member
    kballsocc wrote: »
    I'd say 50-70% of the reason I work out is just to eat more tasty food. I also put a lot of effort into cooking so I have tasty food to look forward too aka homemade pumpkin gnocchi with mushroom and goat cheese and a glass of red wine for dinner tonight

    I’m coming to your place for dinner