Recording my excerise. Necessary or no?
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MFP works best when you don't use it as it's designed to work.
Does not compute I'm afraid.MFP was designed to work while tracking exercise.
Except when a new user joins MFP, the system generates a ridiculously low calorie number for a daily consumption guideline. I'm sure a lot of people were told by the MFP system to follow a 1200 or 1400 calorie a day guideline.
So to summarize... That person eats say 1200 calories, then burns 500 with exercise and adds it to MFP for a reduction, netting that person at 700 calories...
Yeah... sounds really healthy. What does the macro breakdown look like for that?
I would not go by the mantra "Use MFP as it was designed to work". The design is totally flawed and requires major tweaking in order for it to work for you... in a healthy, sensical way.
I still ascertain that TDEE is best for beginners. It makes things more simple in that they do not have to subtract an arbitrary amount of calories burned. The work is already done for them. Additionally, they are given a healthy maintenance TDEE figure in which they can subtract a healthy 10-20% calories from that figure and still lose weight at a steady and safe pace.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MFP works best when you don't use it as it's designed to work.
Does not compute I'm afraid.MFP was designed to work while tracking exercise.
Except when a new user joins MFP, the system generates a ridiculously low calorie number for a daily consumption guideline. I'm sure a lot of people were told to follow a 1200 or 1400 calorie a day guideline.
So to summarize... That person eats say 1200 calories, then burns 500 with exercise and adds it to MFP for a reduction, netting that person at 700 calories...
Yeah... sounds really healthy. What does the macro breakdown look like for that?... Something like 33 g fat, 50 g protein, 50 g carbs? ...Not even if you're in a coma laying in a hospital bed, sorry.
I would not go by the mantra "Use MFP as it was designed to work". The design is totally flawed and requires major tweaking.
No the system doesn't generate a ridiculously low number.
Some people choose an inappropriate rate of weight loss.
That's the fault of the person not the system.
If some people don't eat back exercise calories that's also the fault of the person and not the system.
Do you blame the hammer when someone hits their thumb instead of the nail?0 -
No the system doesn't generate a ridiculously low number.
Some people choose an inappropriate rate of weight loss.
That's the fault of the person not the system.
If some people don't eat back exercise calories that's also the fault of the person and not the system.
Do you blame the hammer when someone hits their thumb instead of the nail?
Almost everyone I've ever met who uses MFP to cut was pitched a rate FAR too low than necessary.
Unfortunately, a program which was designed to help people attain a healthier lifestyle, can more often than not cause long term harm. Urging them to cut a ridiculous figure like 800 calories per day, while providing a skewed macro guideline not based on science. It is counter-productive to drastically cut that many calories from the very start. And it is very unhealthy to consume an extraordinarily low amount of dietary fat for a variety of reasons, notably hormonal health.
You can continue to defend the system "as is" if you wish, but it is extremely misguided and naive to do so. You're dealing with your health here.0 -
No the system doesn't generate a ridiculously low number.
Some people choose an inappropriate rate of weight loss.
That's the fault of the person not the system.
If some people don't eat back exercise calories that's also the fault of the person and not the system.
Do you blame the hammer when someone hits their thumb instead of the nail?
Almost everyone I've ever met who uses MFP to cut was pitched a rate FAR too low than necessary.
Unfortunately, a program which was designed to help people attain a healthier lifestyle, can more often than not cause long term harm. Urging them to cut a ridiculous figure like 800 calories per day, while providing a skewed macro guideline not based on science. It is counter-productive to drastically cut that many calories from the very start. And it is very unhealthy to consume an extraordinarily low amount of dietary fat for a variety of reasons, notably hormonal health.
You can continue to defend the system "as is" if you wish, but it is extremely misguided and naive to do so. You're dealing with your health here.
Exactly what are your scientific and dietary credentials?0 -
No the system doesn't generate a ridiculously low number.
Some people choose an inappropriate rate of weight loss.
That's the fault of the person not the system.
If some people don't eat back exercise calories that's also the fault of the person and not the system.
Do you blame the hammer when someone hits their thumb instead of the nail?
Almost everyone I've ever met who uses MFP to cut was pitched a rate FAR too low than necessary.
Unfortunately, a program which was designed to help people attain a healthier lifestyle, can more often than not cause long term harm. Urging them to cut a ridiculous figure like 800 calories per day, while providing a skewed macro guideline not based on science. It is counter-productive to drastically cut that many calories from the very start. And it is very unhealthy to consume an extraordinarily low amount of dietary fat for a variety of reasons, notably hormonal health.
You can continue to defend the system "as is" if you wish, but it is extremely misguided and naive to do so. You're dealing with your health here.
MFP doesn't guide anyone to 800 calories a day - its minimum is 1200 + exercise calories. You also don't understand where MFP gets its macro recomendations from so go easy on the naive bit. I chose not to follow MFP's macro recomendations but again that's a personal choice based on my circumstances and preferences which are different to the general population.
People can chose to lose fast or chose to lose slow. Personal choice and personal responsibility. Are you aware people also deliberately put incorrect information into TDEE sites? e.g. state they are sedentary when they aren't.
The system is far from perfect and could certainly do with a guided initial set up but you are projecting and making a load of assumptions.0 -
I don't track my excercise. I'm not going to eat those calories back. I don't think the tracker is accurate. More room for error.
I don't think it can hurt you.0 -
No the system doesn't generate a ridiculously low number.
Some people choose an inappropriate rate of weight loss.
That's the fault of the person not the system.
If some people don't eat back exercise calories that's also the fault of the person and not the system.
Do you blame the hammer when someone hits their thumb instead of the nail?
Almost everyone I've ever met who uses MFP to cut was pitched a rate FAR too low than necessary.
Unfortunately, a program which was designed to help people attain a healthier lifestyle, can more often than not cause long term harm. Urging them to cut a ridiculous figure like 800 calories per day, while providing a skewed macro guideline not based on science. It is counter-productive to drastically cut that many calories from the very start. And it is very unhealthy to consume an extraordinarily low amount of dietary fat for a variety of reasons, notably hormonal health.
You can continue to defend the system "as is" if you wish, but it is extremely misguided and naive to do so. You're dealing with your health here.
MFP doesn't guide anyone to 800 calories a day - its minimum is 1200 + exercise calories. You also don't understand where MFP gets its macro recomendations from so go easy on the naive bit. I chose not to follow MFP's macro recomendations but again that's a personal choice based on my circumstances and preferences which are different to the general population.
People can chose to lose fast or chose to lose slow. Personal choice and personal responsibility. Are you aware people also deliberately put incorrect information into TDEE sites? e.g. state they are sedentary when they aren't.
The system is far from perfect and could certainly do with a guided initial set up but you are projecting and making a load of assumptions.
For clarity then...
Calculating Calories and Macronutrients
Calories and Macro's
The following should be taken as general advice. Consult your physician before starting any diet or nutrition plan.
IF YOU ARE < 18 YRS OF AGE THESE FORMULA WILL NOT BE ACCURATE (energy cost of growth, inefficient movement of youth & usually higher surface area:mass ratio). Look HERE for alternatives. Also - I would also STRONGLY suggest you don't OBSESS! Eat well, exercise regularly, and have fun. Being hyper focused on diet / training can create disordered eating & body image issues.
Basic Terminology
1/ BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate): The amount of calories you need to consume to maintain if you were comatose (base level).
2/ NEAT (Non-Exercise Associated Thermogenesis): The calorie of daily activity that is NOT exercise (eg: washing, walking, talking, shopping, working). ie: INCIDENTAL EXERCISE! It is something that everyone has a good amount of control over.
3/ EAT (Exercise Associated Thermogenesis): The calorie requirements associated with planned exercise. Unless someone is doing a whole heap of exercise (eg: two or more hrs training a day) it usually doesn't add a stack of calories to your requirements (30 minutes of 'elliptical training' isn't going to burn 6000 cals)
4/ TEF (Thermic effect of feeding): The calorie expenditure associated with eating. This is NOT dependent on MEAL FREQUENCY. It is a % of TOTAL CALORIES CONSUMED (and 15% of 3 x 600 cal meals is the same as 15% of 6 x 300 cal meals). It varies according to MACRONUTRIENT and FIBER content. For most mixed diets, it is something around 15%. Protein is higher (up to 25%), carbs are variable (between 5-25%), and fats are low (usually less than 5%). So more protein, more carbs, and more fiber = HIGHER TEF. More FAT = LOWER TEF.
5/ TEE (Total Energy Expenditure): The total calories you require. It = sum of the above (BMR + NEAT + EAT + TEF).
To make things simple, NEAT + EAT + TEF is often just calculated through a daily ACTIVITY FACTOR.
How much do I Need?
A multitude of things impact MAINTENANCE calorie needs.
- Age & sex (males generally need > females)
- Total weight & lean mass (more lean mass = more needed)
- Physiological status (eg: sick or injured, pregnant, growth')
- Hormones
- Exercise level (more activity = more needed)
- Daily activity level (more activity = more needed)
- Diet (that is - macronutrient intake)
In order to calculate your requirements the most accurate measure is Calorimetry [the measure of 'chemical reactions' in your body & the heat produced by these reactions], either directly (via a calorimeter where the heat you produce is measured) or indirectly (eg: HOOD studies where they monitor how much oxygen you use/ carbon dioxide and nitrogen you excrete over a given time). But these are completely impractical for most people & we rely on pre-set formula to calculate our needs.
Estimating Requirements
The simplest method uses a standard 'calories per unit weight (usually kgs)'. They calculate a TOTAL CAL REQUIREMENT (TEE). That means you DO NOT need to x by an ACTIVITY FACTOR. They are:
- 26 to 30 kcals/kg/day for normal, healthy individuals with sedentary lifestyles doing little physical activity [12.0-14 kcal/pound]
- 31 to 37 kcal/kg/day for those involved in light to moderate activity 3-5 x a week with moderately active lifestyles [14-16 kcal/ pound]
- 38 to 40 kcals/kg/day for those involved in vigorous activity and highly active jobs [16-18 kcal/ pound].
For those involved in HEAVY training (eg: athletes) - the demand is greater:
- 41 to 50 kcals/kg/day for those involved in moderate to heavy training (for example: 15-20 hrs/ week training) [18.5-22 kcal/ pound]
- 50 or above kcals/kg/day for those involved in heavy to extreme training [> 22 kcal/ pound]
THEN - There are also other formula which calculate BMR. For these you then ADD AN ACTIVITY FACTOR TO REACH TEE. These are:
1/ Harris-Benedict formula: Very inaccurate & derived from studies on LEAN, YOUNG, ACTIVE males in 1919. Notorious for OVERESTIMATING requirements, especially in the overweight. DON'T USE IT!
MEN: BMR = 66 + [13.7 x weight (kg)] + [5 x height (cm)] - [6.76 x age (years)]
WOMEN: BMR = 655 + [9.6 x weight (kg)] + [1.8 x height (cm)] - [4.7 x age (years)]
2/Mifflin-St Jeor: Developed in the 1990s and more realistic in todays settings. Still doesn't consider the differences as a consequence of high BF%. Thus it again OVERESTIMATES NEEDS, ESPECIALLY IN THE OVERWEIGHT.
MEN: BMR = [9.99 x weight (kg)] + [6.25 x height (cm)] - [4.92 x age (years)] + 5
WOMEN: BMR = [9.99 x weight (kg)] + [6.25 x height (cm)] - [4.92 x age (years)] -161
3/Katch-McArdle:Considered the most accurate for those who are relatively lean. Use if you have a good estimate of your bodyfat %.
BMR = 370 + (21.6 x LBM)Where LBM = [total weight (kg) x (100 - bodyfat %)]/100
Again - these are BMR calculations. To convert to a TOTAL requirement you need to multiply the result by an 'activity variable'.
This Activity Factor is the TOTAL cost of living, NOT JUST TRAINING. If you train 1 hr a day - CONSIDER WHAT YOU DO THE OTHER 23 HRS! It includes work, life activities, training/sport & the TEF of ~15% (an average mixed diet).
Average activity variables are:
1.2 = Sedentary (Desk job, and Little Formal Exercise)
1.3-1.4 = Lightly Active (Light daily activity AND light exercise 1-3 days a week)
1.5-1.6 = Moderately Active (Moderately daily Activity & Moderate exercise 3-5 days a week)
1.7-1.8 = Very Active (Physically demanding lifestyle & Hard exercise 6-7 days a week)
1.9-2.2 = Extremely Active (Athlete in ENDURANCE training or VERY HARD physical job)
How Accurate are they?: Rough ball-park figures. Still 'guesstimations'. So use these as 'rough figures', monitor your weight/ measurements for 2-4 weeks. IF your weight is stable/ measurements are stable, you have likely found maintenance.
Using the Above to Recalculate Based on Goals
You then need to DECREASE or INCREASE intake based on your goals (eg: lose or gain mass). For this - DO NOT use a 'generic calorie amounts' (eg: 500 cals/ day) to add / remove. Instead calculate a % of your maintenance. Why? The effect of different calorie amounts is going to be different based on someones size/ total calorie intake. For example - subtracting 500 cals/ day from a 1500 total intake is 1/3rd of the total cals, where 500 cals/ day from 3000 total intake is only 1/6th of the total. The results will therefore be markedly different on an individuals energy level & weight loss. Generally:
- To ADD weight: ADD 10-20% of the TEE to your TEE calories
- To LOSE weight: SUBTRACT 10-20% of the TEE to your TEE calories
Then monitor your results and adjust as required.
Macronutrient Needs
Once you work out calorie needs, you then work out how much of each macronutrient you should aim for. This should NOT be based on a RATIO of macro intakes. (eg: '30:40:30 or 40:40:20') Your body doesn't CARE what % intake you have. It works based on SUFFICIENT QUANTITY per MASS.
1. Protein: Protein intake is a bit of a controversial issue in nutrition. The general recommendations given in the 'bodybuilding' area are nearly double the 'standard' recommendations given in the Sports Nutrition Arena.
So - GENERAL sports nutrition guideline based on clinical trials suggest that in the face of ADEQUATE calories and CARBS the following protein intakes are sufficient:
STRENGTH training -> 1.4 to 2g per KG bodyweight (about .6 / pound)
ENDURANCE training -> 1.2 to 1.8g per KG bodyweight (about .8 / pound)
ADOLESCENT in training -> 1.8 to 2.2g per KG bodyweight (about 1g / pound)
BUT this is 'sufficient' intakes for training. One should note that ADEQUATE v's OPTIMAL is not discussed when it comes to hypertrophy v's 'athlete performance'.
Researchers also acknowledge that protein becomes MORE important in the context of LOWER calorie intakes, or LOWER carb intakes.
Recent evidence also suggests that protein intakes of 2.2-3g/kg in lean athletes help with LEAN MASS RETENTION, and the physiological and psychological stressors associated with high volume or intense training.
Anecdotally, most find HIGHER protein intake better for satiety, partitioning, blood sugar control, and hypertrophy. So UNLESS you have medical reasons for lower protein, or unless guided by a sports nutritionist or physician I would suggest BODYBUILDING values.
General 'bodybuilding' guidelines:
- Moderate bodyfat, Moderate training load, moderate calorie = 2.0-2.5g per lean kg weight (about 0.9-1.2g per pound)
- Low bodyfat or Very Low Calorie, Low Carb, High training load = 2.2-3g per lean kg weight (1.0-1.3g per pound)
- High bodyfat, high calorie, Low training load = 1.6 to 2.2g per lean kg weight (.75-1g per pound)
2. Fats: Generally speaking, although the body can get away with short periods of very low fat, in the long run your body NEEDS fat to maintain health, satiety, and sanity. Additionally - any form of high intensity training will benefit from a 'fat buffer' in your diet - which controls free radical damage & inflammation. General guides:
Average or low bodyfat: 1-1.5g fat/ kg body weight [between 0.4-0.7g total weight/ pounds]. But up to 2g/kg might be needed.
High bodyfat: 1-1.5g fat/ Kg LEAN weight [between 0.4-0.7g LEAN weight/ pounds]. But up to 2g/ kg lean might be needed.
Low cal dieting: You can decrease further, but as a minimum, I would not suggest LESS than about 0.30g/ pound.
Note 1: Total fat intake is NOT the same as 'essential fats' (specific TYPES of fats that are INCLUDED in your total fat intake)...
3. Carbs: Carbs are important for athletes, ACTIVE individuals, & those trying to GAIN MASS. [carbs help with workout intensity, health, & satiety (+ sanity)]. THEY ARE NOT THE DEVIL. There are no specific 'requirements', so -
For 'general gymers'- find the calories left over from subtracting fats/ protein from your TEE:
remaining cals = Total cal needs - ([protein grams x 4] + [fat grams x 9])
grams carbs = (remaining cals)/ 4
BUT: If you are an athlete involved in high volume training I would suggest you CALCULATE a requirement for carbs to start with:
Moderately active: 4.5 - 6.5 g/ kg (about 2 - 3g/ pound)
High active: 6.5 - 8.5 g/ kg (about 3 - 4g/ pound)
INTENSE activity: + 8.5g / kg (more than 4g/ pound)
Then find your protein as above and use fats for remaining cals from your TEE:
remaining cals = Total cal needs - ([protein grams x 4] + [carb grams x 4])
grams fats = (remaining cals)/ 90 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MFP works best when you don't use it as it's designed to work.
MFP is designed to work as either TDEE or BMR/NEAT+Exercise.
Either is just fine.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MFP works best when you don't use it as it's designed to work.
MFP is designed to work as either TDEE or BMR/NEAT+Exercise.
Either is just fine.
Although if one uses it for TDEE one either doesn't record exercise or gives it a notional value, in which case it becomes an intake tracking tool, rather than an intakre and output tracking tool.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »MFP works best when you don't use it as it's designed to work.
MFP is designed to work as either TDEE or BMR/NEAT+Exercise.
Either is just fine.
Although if one uses it for TDEE one either doesn't record exercise or gives it a notional value, in which case it becomes an intake tracking tool, rather than an intakre and output tracking tool.
Anybody using MFP properly for output tracking is changing MFP's calorie burn numbers anyway, so really, in a practical sense, nobody is really using MFP for output tracking anyway, because the numbers are being calculated externally, anyway.
Going TDEE path just formalizes that process.
0 -
@sixxpoint ,
Copying and pasting that much material without citation is plagiarism.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »@sixxpoint ,
Copying and pasting that much material without citation is plagiarism.
Lol.
It's directly from my culinary book's section on nutrition, but you can also find it in the Nutrition Forum of Bodybuilding.com - the person who posted it there also plagiarised, I guess.0 -
As someone with similar stats (5'6.5, starting weight 145, goal weight 125, current weight 130), here's what I'd suggest based on my experience:
- Set exercise to sedentary
- Set goal rate of loss to 0.5 lb/week
- Weigh and log everything (everything!) that you consume
- Log any additional exercise above sedentary (walking, biking, jogging) and eat back half of the MFP burn estimate - in general, forum consensus is that the estimates are pretty high; you can correct later if you find you need to eat more/less
If after a month you haven't lost at 0.5 lb/week following this advice, eat less. I lost 15 lbs at about 1.2 lb/week and I wouldn't recommend it - you're going to have to learn to eat consistently at your maintenance levels anyway if you don't want to gain back the weight, and it's easier to do that when you start off eating closer to maintenance.0 -
So to summarize... That person eats say 1200 calories, then burns 500 with exercise and adds it to MFP for a reduction, netting that person at 700 calories...
So using the system as it's designed would mean that the individual would have a daily goal of 1700 cals, since their net target would be 1200, and they'd then need to offset the 500 expended.
I'd agree that it's not all that intuitive to many, as we see lots of threads asking about what the best exercise to burn lots of cals is, people aren't appreciating that they should be eating those cals back.
Just because the problem exists between the chair and the keyboard, doesn't mean that the service provided is flawed.
So the point to the originator is, yes one should eat back what is expended in exercise.
And for the latter part of my original point, TDEE is fine if one is expending a consistent level of energy per session or the periodisation is short enough that increases and decreases are smoothed over time. Similarly, for some the background levle of activity changes quite significantly, and while TDEE can be modified, it may be easier just to reset base activity and stick with NEAT. In my own case if I mobilise on exercise in the field for a month then my activity level is significantly higher than sitting in an HQ location somewhere.
Different circumstances have different needs, I would suggest that broad brush assertions about suitablity of the tools aren't all that helpful.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »So to summarize... That person eats say 1200 calories, then burns 500 with exercise and adds it to MFP for a reduction, netting that person at 700 calories...
So using the system as it's designed would mean that the individual would have a daily goal of 1700 cals, since their net target would be 1200, and they'd then need to offset the 500 expended.
I'd agree that it's not all that intuitive to many, as we see lots of threads asking about what the best exercise to burn lots of cals is, people aren't appreciating that they should be eating those cals back.
Just because the problem exists between the chair and the keyboard, doesn't mean that the service provided is flawed.
So the point to the originator is, yes one should eat back what is expended in exercise.
And for the latter part of my original point, TDEE is fine if one is expending a consistent level of energy per session or the periodisation is short enough that increases and decreases are smoothed over time. Similarly, for some the background levle of activity changes quite significantly, and while TDEE can be modified, it may be easier just to reset base activity and stick with NEAT. In my own case if I mobilise on exercise in the field for a month then my activity level is significantly higher than sitting in an HQ location somewhere.
Different circumstances have different needs, I would suggest that broad brush assertions about suitablity of the tools aren't all that helpful.
Honest discussion of TDEE vs NEAT requires both parties understand the real differences in the two. Trying to discuss it with a person who misrepresents how NEAT is properly calculated makes an honest, intellectual discussion impossible. Perhaps when they learn that the difference in the two is when exercise activity thermogenisis is incorporated into the equation they will then join in rational discourse.0 -
1. No Attacks or Insults and No Reciprocation
a) Do not attack, mock, or otherwise insult others. You can respectfully disagree with the message or topic, but you cannot attack the messenger. This includes attacks against the user’s spelling or command of written English, or belittling a user for posting a duplicate topic.
b) If you are attacked by another user, and you reciprocate, you will also be subject to the same consequences. Defending yourself or a friend is not an excuse! Do not take matters into your own hands – instead, use the Report Post link to report an attack and we will be happy to handle the situation for you.
2. No Hi-Jacking, Trolling, or Flame-baiting
Please stay on-topic in an existing thread, and post new threads in the appropriate forum. Taking a thread off-topic is considered hi-jacking. Please either contribute politely and constructively to a topic, or move on without posting. This includes posts that encourage the drama in a topic to escalate, or posts intended to incite an uproar from the community.
Hey guys, this thread has been cleaned up a little to remove posts that violated community guidelines. Please remember to post politely and on topic. If you'd like to discuss a different topic, you're more than welcome to start another thread.0 -
So this thread is open again?0
-
_incogNEATo_ wrote: »So this thread is open again?
Apparently. :flowerforyou:
OP, if you're already only eating 1200 calories and not eating back exercise calories, you're very likely not getting adequate nutrition. IMO you SHOULD be recording exercise and eating back a portion of the calories earned. What is your height and current weight?0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Honest discussion of TDEE vs NEAT requires both parties understand the real differences in the two.
Indeed, they're tools. Making progress is about appreciating where the tools are, what their usefulness is, and developing their ability to support the objectives.
Not all tools have much utility though.0 -
Thanks everyone for their input and advice! This is all just so confusing to me. I don't get the terminology or even what yall are talking about lol. I guess I'll just have to play around with the site myself and find out what works best for me. I was exploring a little bit last night and found that my calorie intake was low, now it's up to around 1400 and I don't get eating back the calories you burned. Isn't the whole point to burn them off? Why would u want to eat them back? For energy?0
-
hiaaitsmegan2 wrote: »Thanks everyone for their input and advice! This is all just so confusing to me. I don't get the terminology or even what yall are talking about lol. I guess I'll just have to play around with the site myself and find out what works best for me. I was exploring a little bit last night and found that my calorie intake was low, now it's up to around 1400 and I don't get eating back the calories you burned. Isn't the whole point to burn them off? Why would u want to eat them back? For energy?
Part for energy ... part to ensure you get enough nutrients ... part to minimize the amount of lean mass lost. The deficit required for weight loss is already included in your goal. A bigger deficit is not necessarily the healthiest way to lose weight. More rapid loss results in lost lean mass (muscle, organs).
0 -
hiaaitsmegan2 wrote: »...and I don't get eating back the calories you burned. Isn't the whole point to burn them off?
So this gets to the heart of how MFP is designed to work, the debate upthread about alternative methods are just different ways to account for the energy that you consume, and the energy that you expend. At its simplest, MFP has calculated a goal of 1400cals per day for you, net. That will give you the rate of loss that you've set, and it assumes you do no exercise. Essentially weight loss is only about calories in vs calories out (aka CICO).
When you train, you expend more calories, so your deficit will be greater than that calculated. Some might see that as a good thing as it'll lead to faster weight loss, but as observed by many in thread that can be unhealthy as it leads to an unbalanced loss. So you eat back your calories to keep your deficit in balance.
You then get into a debate about the accuracy of measuring both calories in, and calories out. Calories in is pretty simple, weight and measure what you consume and log accordingly. That's not always possible for some, personally I travel a lot for work so I'm on hotel food three or four nights per week and just eyeball it. My goals are about running performance rather than weight per se.
As far as calories out are concerned, there are many variables and lots of ways of getting the wrong measurement, with very few ways of getting an accurate measurement. So people find different ways to account for the level of error. Some ignore it, and rail against their lack of progress. Some only eat back a portion of their expenditure, some don't eat back any. Personally I generally only eat back a proportion, but as I'm generally doing long distance running I have large calorie expenditures and physically can't eat back enough at times anyway. I currently have 1300 calories available to me for dinner, I'll probably manage 950. That's fine for me, but at 1400 cals you don't have much margin for error before you're undereating.
The best advice I can give you is to pick a method of estimating calories expended, and stick with it. As you make progress you can tweak how you compensate for that, based on how you're doing. If you are losing faster than planned, then eat back more, if slower then eat back less.
I hope that helps a little.0 -
Yes thank you that did help! The problem is, is that I mostly work out late in the evening so by the time that I log everything in I don't have time to eat my back calories. I guess it's all about finding the swing of things I'm not even a week into this lol0
-
If that is the case, consider logging your exercise as the next day's activity so that the calories are there when you get up in the morning.0
-
hiaaitsmegan2 wrote: »Yes thank you that did help! The problem is, is that I mostly work out late in the evening so by the time that I log everything in I don't have time to eat my back calories. I guess it's all about finding the swing of things I'm not even a week into this lol
There are different ways to play it, and a lot of that depends on what training you do and how you measure it.
I'm the same, tend to train in the evenings during the week, and in the forenoons at the weekend when I do my long run or ride. What that means is that I eat more in the day, leaving myself with a smaller budget in the evening, that then increases after I train. So again today I ate about 1400 calories over the course of the day, leaving myself 600 for dinner, then burned a further 600 bringing the available budget up to 1200.
0 -
Okay this is starting to make sense the way your explaining it. So anything you exercise off gets added back into your calories and its your choice weather to eat all or half or none back but you do not want to go under the calories you start off with correct?0
-
That's it
0 -
Thank you so much! Your the first person to explain it to where I actually understood what they were saying lol. Big help!!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions