People on the margins: A discussion regarding net calories
Replies
-
Honestly, even that won't help everyone. Not everyone can eat little enough to lose weight.No piece of advice works for everyone.
That is why discussion boards are nice. People who want a variety of opinions can get them. Maybe hear something new.
There is no One, True Way to lose weight.
Yes there is Calories in < Calories Out
There is no one true path to acheiving that .. whatever suits .. but that ..is absolutely the over-riding, indisputable true way
There is no one thing you can say that will work for everyone. "Eat fewer calories than you burn" is pretty basic and would work for most people, lol, but it's not really a plan, KWIM? Everyone has different goals, etc.
Honestly yes it will
OK maybe you need medical intervention to fix your calories out part of the equation but that doesn't negate it
Eat fewer calories than you burn is meant to be basic .. because if the goal is weight loss that's the basic answer .. the one 'true path'
We have free will to create the plan that suits our psyche / our lifestyle / our fancies and desires
But it still boils down to CICO
I think you and I are having two different conversations, lol. I was talking about weight loss advice. That's all. I'm not getting into the craziness of those CICO fights. If I seemed like I was, I apologize.
If you believe that there is one piece of weight loss advice that will go for every single person, we disagree, but I hope we can agree to disagree on that.
You mean do what I do doesn't cut it .. I'm shocked ...
Yeah I agree .. there's no ubiquitous this is how you reach your defecit advice .. people have got to (wo)man up and find their own way to achieving CI<CO0 -
You're suggesting that the advice doesn't apply to some people, right?PeachyCarol wrote: »No piece of advice works for everyone.
That is why discussion boards are nice. People who want a variety of opinions can get them. Maybe hear something new.
There is no One, True Way to lose weight.
I fail to see how this pertains to the thread, other than the issue of blanket advice not being applicable. We agree there.
However, you introducing the issue of weight loss and true ways? Not germane to the discussion.
I'm saying that no piece of advice applies to all people.
Did I misunderstand your original point?
I see you're playing the "here to argue game". Don't.
0 -
Thank you so much for posting this, as I'm also a "marginal" and I'm trying to find my correct calorie level.
In my situation, I'm more sedentary that the Sedentary setting allows for (I do 50-100 steps on a good day). When I enabled negative adjustments I could see that I hadn't burned enough but MFP kept me at 1200. My workaround was to change my weekly goal to 1lb and disable those adjustments, but it means that my base data is incorrect. My daily target is now 1430 but I try to keep to 1200ish, and if I use my passive static bicycle I don't eat those calories at all.
I'm sure there is an easier/more accurate way, but I just haven't figured it out yet. I'm still in the first flush ('scuse the pun!) of water loss, so I guess it will be more important to fine tune when I'm nearer goal.0 -
Honestly, even that won't help everyone. Not everyone can eat little enough to lose weight.No piece of advice works for everyone.
That is why discussion boards are nice. People who want a variety of opinions can get them. Maybe hear something new.
There is no One, True Way to lose weight.
Yes there is Calories in < Calories Out
There is no one true path to acheiving that .. whatever suits .. but that ..is absolutely the over-riding, indisputable true way
There is no one thing you can say that will work for everyone. "Eat fewer calories than you burn" is pretty basic and would work for most people, lol, but it's not really a plan, KWIM? Everyone has different goals, etc.
Just stop. You're wrong. Adaptive thermogenesis is not the topic of this thread and issues you introduced into this thread are derailing it.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »
You're suggesting that the advice doesn't apply to some people, right?PeachyCarol wrote: »No piece of advice works for everyone.
That is why discussion boards are nice. People who want a variety of opinions can get them. Maybe hear something new.
There is no One, True Way to lose weight.
I fail to see how this pertains to the thread, other than the issue of blanket advice not being applicable. We agree there.
However, you introducing the issue of weight loss and true ways? Not germane to the discussion.
I'm saying that no piece of advice applies to all people.
Did I misunderstand your original point?
I see you're playing the "here to argue game". Don't.
I wasn't arguing. It was a genuine question. I don't do that, "Ask a question so that I can make fun of the answer" thing.
I can see why you'd think that! It happens a lot! But it was sincere.0 -
ohmscheeks wrote: »
Agreed - The overreaching calorie advice is one of my LOL points around here. People clearly have so many different physiques even at the same height/weight.PeachyCarol wrote: »My point? Blanket recommendations regarding net caloric intake aren't helpful.
No wait. The advice to eat less than you burn is always spot on.
You missed my point. There are so many alarmist generalizations regarding DON'T EAT TOO LOW WITH YOUR NET BURNS without actually analyzing the numbers.
That was my point. If someone is doing something like I do and not logging half the burn, but just eating it, they are going to show a low net intake. It's not a problem then. If someone LOGS half the burn, then it's not an issue.
0 -
I'm not a shortie, however I understand the issue. I manually change the calories to something probably closer to accurate when I log my exercise. On my feed, it says I burned 150 calories for 30 minutes of elliptical this morning. It's a total guess, but it is not the 394 that MFP says I burned because I know that's a big fat lie.
I know picking random calories is also not the answer, but it works for me since I have a FitBit and I know that the FitBit is gonna override it anyways and give me the exercise adjustment based on what it says my TDEE is today.
I hear ya though. I think that the hard and fast rules...are in fact not hard and fast. ETA: Except CICO...that's hard and fast and no matter what else you add to it, it always works and is always true.
The biggest issue I have with accurate calories is that my two preferred forms of exercise? Well, it's just hard to find an accurate burn for water jogging and strength training. I really feel like I'm shooting in the dark.
I feel like my scale is my best metric, you know?
0 -
Agreed! There should be a sticky.
Honestly, even that won't help everyone. Not everyone can eat little enough to lose weight.No piece of advice works for everyone.
That is why discussion boards are nice. People who want a variety of opinions can get them. Maybe hear something new.
There is no One, True Way to lose weight.
Yes there is Calories in < Calories Out
There is no one true path to acheiving that .. whatever suits .. but that ..is absolutely the over-riding, indisputable true way
There is no one thing you can say that will work for everyone. "Eat fewer calories than you burn" is pretty basic and would work for most people, lol, but it's not really a plan, KWIM? Everyone has different goals, etc.
Honestly yes it will
OK maybe you need medical intervention to fix your calories out part of the equation but that doesn't negate it
Eat fewer calories than you burn is meant to be basic .. because if the goal is weight loss that's the basic answer .. the one 'true path'
We have free will to create the plan that suits our psyche / our lifestyle / our fancies and desires
But it still boils down to CICO
I think you and I are having two different conversations, lol. I was talking about weight loss advice. That's all. I'm not getting into the craziness of those CICO fights. If I seemed like I was, I apologize.
If you believe that there is one piece of weight loss advice that will go for every single person, we disagree, but I hope we can agree to disagree on that.
You mean do what I do doesn't cut it .. I'm shocked ...
Yeah I agree .. there's no ubiquitous this is how you reach your defecit advice .. people have got to (wo)man up and find their own way to achieving CI<CO
Want to try something? Try it! See how it works. Adjust as necessary. Make a decision, (wo)man up and do it!
That would eliminate about 98% of threads, lol.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
If I go by what my HRM tells me, I burn 1300 calories with exercise. If I eat half of that, my "net" calories will be 950. But I don't believe that is the correct number of calories burned. So I don't log that figure. Instead, I take the number from MapMyRide, but with my weight in MapMyRide set to 100 pounds. That gives me a calorie burn of 545. So, when I eat the 2145 calories MFP tells me to eat, my net calories is the 1600 I'm expecting.
My question is, why would you want to claim calories that you know you aren't burning? Who cares what the estimating tools say, if you know you aren't burning those calories, don't log them. It only messes up what MFP tells you.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »If I go by what my HRM tells me, I burn 1300 calories with exercise. If I eat half of that, my "net" calories will be 950. But I don't believe that is the correct number of calories burned. So I don't log that figure. Instead, I take the number from MapMyRide, but with my weight in MapMyRide set to 100 pounds. That gives me a calorie burn of 545. So, when I eat the 2145 calories MFP tells me to eat, my net calories is the 1600 I'm expecting.
My question is, why would you want to claim calories that you know you aren't burning? Who cares what the estimating tools say, if you know you aren't burning those calories, don't log them. It only messes up what MFP tells you.
Because I'm silly and like a bit of fun in my day. It's the same reason I enjoy fortunes in fortune cookies. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what MFP tells me, it matter what the scale tells me and if my body is nourished.
This isn't the point, though. The point is apparently, I'm not alone. A lot of people don't cut their burns in half when logging them. I can tell from what I see people logging on their feed.
I wanted to address the fact that generally, in the forums, I see two pieces of blanket advice given out... eat back half your calories!!!! and don't have too low a net caloric intake!!!!!
The issue I've never seen addressed until this thread? I've never seen anyone tell someone to only LOG half the burn for people using NEAT.
0 -
Honestly, even that won't help everyone. Not everyone can eat little enough to lose weight.No piece of advice works for everyone.
That is why discussion boards are nice. People who want a variety of opinions can get them. Maybe hear something new.
There is no One, True Way to lose weight.
Yes there is Calories in < Calories Out
There is no one true path to acheiving that .. whatever suits .. but that ..is absolutely the over-riding, indisputable true way
There is no one thing you can say that will work for everyone. "Eat fewer calories than you burn" is pretty basic and would work for most people, lol, but it's not really a plan, KWIM? Everyone has different goals, etc.
Honestly yes it will
OK maybe you need medical intervention to fix your calories out part of the equation but that doesn't negate it
Eat fewer calories than you burn is meant to be basic .. because if the goal is weight loss that's the basic answer .. the one 'true path'
We have free will to create the plan that suits our psyche / our lifestyle / our fancies and desires
But it still boils down to CICO
I think you and I are having two different conversations, lol. I was talking about weight loss advice. That's all. I'm not getting into the craziness of those CICO fights. If I seemed like I was, I apologize.
If you believe that there is one piece of weight loss advice that will go for every single person, we disagree, but I hope we can agree to disagree on that.
You mean do what I do doesn't cut it .. I'm shocked ...
Yeah I agree .. there's no ubiquitous this is how you reach your defecit advice .. people have got to (wo)man up and find their own way to achieving CI<CO
This is a good discussion to wake up to this morning.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »If I go by what my HRM tells me, I burn 1300 calories with exercise. If I eat half of that, my "net" calories will be 950. But I don't believe that is the correct number of calories burned. So I don't log that figure. Instead, I take the number from MapMyRide, but with my weight in MapMyRide set to 100 pounds. That gives me a calorie burn of 545. So, when I eat the 2145 calories MFP tells me to eat, my net calories is the 1600 I'm expecting.
My question is, why would you want to claim calories that you know you aren't burning? Who cares what the estimating tools say, if you know you aren't burning those calories, don't log them. It only messes up what MFP tells you.
Because I'm silly and like a bit of fun in my day. It's the same reason I enjoy fortunes in fortune cookies. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what MFP tells me, it matter what the scale tells me and if my body is nourished.
This isn't the point, though. The point is apparently, I'm not alone. A lot of people don't cut their burns in half when logging them. I can tell from what I see people logging on their feed.
I wanted to address the fact that generally, in the forums, I see two pieces of blanket advice given out... eat back half your calories!!!! and don't have too low a net caloric intake!!!!!
The issue I've never seen addressed until this thread? I've never seen anyone tell someone to only LOG half the burn for people using NEAT.
You haven't? At some point, I would think that you would've read one of these posts where someone told someone to calculate their calorie burns accurately and to use net calorie burn instead of gross calorie burn when logging their calories. When people tell people to eat half of their calories, they're telling people the same thing, they just don't realize it because they haven't taken the time to figure out why eating half of the exercise calories reported works.0 -
I think the dichotomy of MFP wanting you to eat “all your exercise calories” back is an implied “incremental” exercise calories. The reason the rule of thumb is to only log half your exercise calories is most calculators include the BMR portion of burn during the time you were exercising as part of the answer (wouldn’t you include those too if you were in the marketing department of a fitness company????).
For the math folks, Total Exercise Caloric Burn = BMR Burn + Incremental Exercise Burn
BMR calorie burn is already factored into your goal calories on MFP – so essentially you are double counting every time you log 100% of calories credited from exercise calculators. So OP, I think it is totally reasonable to go with rabbitjb’s suggestion of only logging half the calories expended according to the calculators so you don’t show an inaccurate deficit (i.e. < 1200).
But in general, I agree folks that are older and shorter get a raw deal on CICO. Bottom line is they need to consume less than the rest. A positive is they get to spend less on food too!
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »If I go by what my HRM tells me, I burn 1300 calories with exercise. If I eat half of that, my "net" calories will be 950. But I don't believe that is the correct number of calories burned. So I don't log that figure. Instead, I take the number from MapMyRide, but with my weight in MapMyRide set to 100 pounds. That gives me a calorie burn of 545. So, when I eat the 2145 calories MFP tells me to eat, my net calories is the 1600 I'm expecting.
My question is, why would you want to claim calories that you know you aren't burning? Who cares what the estimating tools say, if you know you aren't burning those calories, don't log them. It only messes up what MFP tells you.
Because I'm silly and like a bit of fun in my day. It's the same reason I enjoy fortunes in fortune cookies. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what MFP tells me, it matter what the scale tells me and if my body is nourished.
This isn't the point, though. The point is apparently, I'm not alone. A lot of people don't cut their burns in half when logging them. I can tell from what I see people logging on their feed.
I wanted to address the fact that generally, in the forums, I see two pieces of blanket advice given out... eat back half your calories!!!! and don't have too low a net caloric intake!!!!!
The issue I've never seen addressed until this thread? I've never seen anyone tell someone to only LOG half the burn for people using NEAT.
You haven't? At some point, I would think that you would've read one of these posts where someone told someone to calculate their calorie burns accurately and to use net calorie burn instead of gross calorie burn when logging their calories. When people tell people to eat half of their calories, they're telling people the same thing, they just don't realize it because they haven't taken the time to figure out why eating half of the exercise calories reported works.
Wait. A net calorie burn is not the same thing as net calories eaten.
A net calorie burn removes BMR from exercise calories accounted for.
Not the same thing.
0 -
cdcllcga01 wrote: »I think the dichotomy of MFP wanting you to eat “all your exercise calories” back is an implied “incremental” exercise calories. The reason the rule of thumb is to only log half your exercise calories is most calculators include the BMR portion of burn during the time you were exercising as part of the answer (wouldn’t you include those too if you were in the marketing department of a fitness company????).
For the math folks, Total Exercise Caloric Burn = BMR Burn + Incremental Exercise Burn
BMR calorie burn is already factored into your goal calories on MFP – so essentially you are double counting every time you log 100% of calories credited from exercise calculators. So OP, I think it is totally reasonable to go with rabbitjb’s suggestion of only logging half the calories expended according to the calculators so you don’t show an inaccurate deficit (i.e. < 1200).
But in general, I agree folks that are older and shorter get a raw deal on CICO. Bottom line is they need to consume less than the rest. A positive is they get to spend less on food too!
Exactly. Now that I've had my first cup of tea, I can probably enter into this discussion I started a little more fluently.
I think we can probably do a better job explaining things, and asking for numbers.
0 -
cdcllcga01 wrote: »I think the dichotomy of MFP wanting you to eat “all your exercise calories” back is an implied “incremental” exercise calories. The reason the rule of thumb is to only log half your exercise calories is most calculators include the BMR portion of burn during the time you were exercising as part of the answer (wouldn’t you include those too if you were in the marketing department of a fitness company????).
For the math folks, Total Exercise Caloric Burn = BMR Burn + Incremental Exercise Burn
BMR calorie burn is already factored into your goal calories on MFP – so essentially you are double counting every time you log 100% of calories credited from exercise calculators. So OP, I think it is totally reasonable to go with rabbitjb’s suggestion of only logging half the calories expended according to the calculators so you don’t show an inaccurate deficit (i.e. < 1200).
But in general, I agree folks that are older and shorter get a raw deal on CICO. Bottom line is they need to consume less than the rest. A positive is they get to spend less on food too!
this makes sense .. I always wondered why they were so out .. haven't used MFP database estimates for months though
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »When I first started with MFP I ate them all back and lost the weight I wanted...so I am one of those that "eat back half" doesn't apply to.
For women who are smaller/shorter/leaner I do still think 1200 should be the minimum unless you can be assured you are getting in your nutrients. I say this because it is very hard to get in minimums within 1200 calories...let alone 900...
However that being said if it is one or two days it won't "kill" you so I am sure that even my thoughts have exceptions.
Eh, but that's the point. It's not really 900. I could cut the logging of the burn in half and it would net right around 1200. I'm eating back half. It's just the way the math works out when you down to the margins.
Yes, this.
I don't really worry about hitting a specific number for net. In fact, since I switched to TDEE method I don't see net. What I worry about is eating at least 1200 (not that I'm ever close anymore to being under that) and not having an excessive overall deficit. I think really low nets often indicate a problem with that. A net under 1200 for someone on a lower calorie requirement (or just generally smaller) doesn't.
For example, I can do TDEE-20% and get a calorie goal of about 1650 which will result in a loss of about 1 lb per week (not that I've been doing this lately). Very often I exercise more than 450 calories in a day, but on other days I exercise less. I don't worry about that, since 1650 is plenty of calories to get in nutrients. If I started to lose more than expected or feel run down or tired, I'd eat more.
I think broader questions are just "are you eating enough food to get in nutrients" (which isn't about the net) and "is your deficit excessive."0 -
cdcllcga01 wrote: »I think the dichotomy of MFP wanting you to eat “all your exercise calories” back is an implied “incremental” exercise calories. The reason the rule of thumb is to only log half your exercise calories is most calculators include the BMR portion of burn during the time you were exercising as part of the answer (wouldn’t you include those too if you were in the marketing department of a fitness company????).
For the math folks, Total Exercise Caloric Burn = BMR Burn + Incremental Exercise Burn
BMR calorie burn is already factored into your goal calories on MFP – so essentially you are double counting every time you log 100% of calories credited from exercise calculators. So OP, I think it is totally reasonable to go with rabbitjb’s suggestion of only logging half the calories expended according to the calculators so you don’t show an inaccurate deficit (i.e. < 1200).
But in general, I agree folks that are older and shorter get a raw deal on CICO. Bottom line is they need to consume less than the rest. A positive is they get to spend less on food too!
this makes sense .. I always wondered why they were so out .. haven't used MFP database estimates for months though
Shapesense has a calculator for calculating net burn. I might start using their burn for water jogging too. It's less than MFP. I still don't know that I'd eat back all those calories, though! Too many variables.
0 -
Honestly, even that won't help everyone. Not everyone can eat little enough to lose weight.No piece of advice works for everyone.
That is why discussion boards are nice. People who want a variety of opinions can get them. Maybe hear something new.
There is no One, True Way to lose weight.
Yes there is Calories in < Calories Out
There is no one true path to acheiving that .. whatever suits .. but that ..is absolutely the over-riding, indisputable true way
There is no one thing you can say that will work for everyone. "Eat fewer calories than you burn" is pretty basic and would work for most people, lol, but it's not really a plan, KWIM? Everyone has different goals, etc.
actually, it works for everyone, and please stay on topic. You are derailing this thread.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »When I first started with MFP I ate them all back and lost the weight I wanted...so I am one of those that "eat back half" doesn't apply to.
For women who are smaller/shorter/leaner I do still think 1200 should be the minimum unless you can be assured you are getting in your nutrients. I say this because it is very hard to get in minimums within 1200 calories...let alone 900...
However that being said if it is one or two days it won't "kill" you so I am sure that even my thoughts have exceptions.
Eh, but that's the point. It's not really 900. I could cut the logging of the burn in half and it would net right around 1200. I'm eating back half. It's just the way the math works out when you down to the margins.
Yes, this.
I don't really worry about hitting a specific number for net. In fact, since I switched to TDEE method I don't see net. What I worry about is eating at least 1200 (not that I'm ever close anymore to being under that) and not having an excessive overall deficit. I think really low nets often indicate a problem with that. A net under 1200 for someone on a lower calorie requirement (or just generally smaller) doesn't.
For example, I can do TDEE-20% and get a calorie goal of about 1650 which will result in a loss of about 1 lb per week (not that I've been doing this lately). Very often I exercise more than 450 calories in a day, but on other days I exercise less. I don't worry about that, since 1650 is plenty of calories to get in nutrients. If I started to lose more than expected or feel run down or tired, I'd eat more.
I think broader questions are just "are you eating enough food to get in nutrients" (which isn't about the net) and "is your deficit excessive."
I'd switch to TDEE in a heartbeat if it weren't for my migraines and PsA flares. But... they pop up and my exercise isn't consistent enough because of them. It would sure simplify things.
0 -
OP - I see some people that eat back 75% to 100% of their exercise calories and it works for them. The only people that I ask if they eat 100% of exercise calories are people that are stalled, as they are usually eating 100% of exercise calories and not using a food scale, and there in lies their problem.
Perhaps, you should try to eat back 100% of your exercise calories for two weeks and see if you keep losing one pound per week? If it works then you know that you can eat back 100% and still lose weight.
At the end of the day these things really are trial and error. I have been at this for a while now, and I pretty much have my gain level, maintenance level, and cutting level pegged to within 100 calories.
Final thought - have you ever considered switching to TDEE method instead of MFP method? That way, your activity level is already built in and you do not have to worry about exercise calories burned.0 -
This is why I TDEE. There's just no accurate way to calculate workout calories and I was spending too much time debating on exercise calories and how much to eat back. My workouts are fairly consistent, so I picked a TDEE - X% goal from the Scooby calculator and just tried it for a while. I adjusted from there.0
-
I'm a Margin-ite. 5'2.5," 65 years old and close to goal having lost 48lbs with 4-6lbs left to hit maintenance. I'm set at 1200 calories but rarely eat so few. I eat back about half to three quarters of my exercise calories so my net is always below 1200. Now, so close to goal, I'm only losing about a pound per month. I feel great, I'm active (working out 4Xs per week lifting weights and some cardio), and fairly energetic for a 65 soon to be 66 year old.
I used to worry about netting under 1200 cals but since all systems are go I just ignore the net and stick with my 1200 plus exercise calories. I've been able to cut my meds back by half (blood pressure, cholesterol) and my doctor is happy. It's working for me.
Edited to add: I'm using a Fitbit Charge HR to track my calories burned with both the Fitbit and MFP set to 1200 calories with the negative calorie adjustment enabled on MFP. I checked the Fitbit against my Polar FT7 for gym exercise only and my overall day seems pretty accurate with the Fitbit so I've quit using the HRM. I've continued losing weight at the same rate.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »When I first started with MFP I ate them all back and lost the weight I wanted...so I am one of those that "eat back half" doesn't apply to.
For women who are smaller/shorter/leaner I do still think 1200 should be the minimum unless you can be assured you are getting in your nutrients. I say this because it is very hard to get in minimums within 1200 calories...let alone 900...
However that being said if it is one or two days it won't "kill" you so I am sure that even my thoughts have exceptions.
Eh, but that's the point. It's not really 900. I could cut the logging of the burn in half and it would net right around 1200. I'm eating back half. It's just the way the math works out when you down to the margins.
Yes, this.
I don't really worry about hitting a specific number for net. In fact, since I switched to TDEE method I don't see net. What I worry about is eating at least 1200 (not that I'm ever close anymore to being under that) and not having an excessive overall deficit. I think really low nets often indicate a problem with that. A net under 1200 for someone on a lower calorie requirement (or just generally smaller) doesn't.
For example, I can do TDEE-20% and get a calorie goal of about 1650 which will result in a loss of about 1 lb per week (not that I've been doing this lately). Very often I exercise more than 450 calories in a day, but on other days I exercise less. I don't worry about that, since 1650 is plenty of calories to get in nutrients. If I started to lose more than expected or feel run down or tired, I'd eat more.
I think broader questions are just "are you eating enough food to get in nutrients" (which isn't about the net) and "is your deficit excessive."
I'd switch to TDEE in a heartbeat if it weren't for my migraines and PsA flares. But... they pop up and my exercise isn't consistent enough because of them. It would sure simplify things.
Adjust your TDEE to account for these missing workouts. Choose 1-3 hours a week instead of 3-5 hours a week (or whatever). Or just realize that you might not lose at a consistent rate. Either method is ok. I miss workouts once in a while, but I know that I might lose a little slower that week and don't freak out over it.0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »This is why I TDEE. There's just no accurate way to calculate workout calories and I was spending too much time debating on exercise calories and how much to eat back. My workouts are fairly consistent, so I picked a TDEE - X% goal from the Scooby calculator and just tried it for a while. I adjusted from there.
This is what I do. I found the MFP way of eating calories back confusing because I felt like I never could figure out an accurate burn.0 -
OP - I see some people that eat back 75% to 100% of their exercise calories and it works for them. The only people that I ask if they eat 100% of exercise calories are people that are stalled, as they are usually eating 100% of exercise calories and not using a food scale, and there in lies their problem.
Perhaps, you should try to eat back 100% of your exercise calories for two weeks and see if you keep losing one pound per week? If it works then you know that you can eat back 100% and still lose weight.
At the end of the day these things really are trial and error. I have been at this for a while now, and I pretty much have my gain level, maintenance level, and cutting level pegged to within 100 calories.
Final thought - have you ever considered switching to TDEE method instead of MFP method? That way, your activity level is already built in and you do not have to worry about exercise calories burned.
I might try TDEE for maintenance. What I'm doing works for now. My thyroid's a bit whacked at the moment though, so I need to wait for that to get sorted (appt set for a few weeks).
The thing that scares me about TDEE is that I had a two month long migraine this past winter (freaked my neuro out too), but I know nothing I do is written in stone.
The bottom line is that what I'm doing works okay for now for me.
I've been around long enough that I'm cool with having sorted through all the information and having arrived at what was pertinent and the right answer though.
The issue I wanted to raise in this thread is that maybe it's not always clear to someone newer, though.
0 -
I'm a Margin-ite. 5'2.5," 65 years old and close to goal having lost 48lbs with 4-6lbs left to hit maintenance. I'm set at 1200 calories but rarely eat so few. I eat back about half to three quarters of my exercise calories so my net is always below 1200. Now, so close to goal, I'm only losing about a pound per month. I feel great, I'm active (working out 4Xs per week lifting weights and some cardio), and fairly energetic for a 65 soon to be 66 year old.
I used to worry about netting under 1200 cals but since all systems are go I just ignore the net and stick with my 1200 plus exercise calories. I've been able to cut my meds back by half (blood pressure, cholesterol) and my doctor is happy. It's working for me.
Edited to add: I'm using a Fitbit Charge HR to track my calories burned with both the Fitbit and MFP set to 1200 calories with the negative calorie adjustment enabled on MFP. I checked the Fitbit against my Polar FT7 for gym exercise only and my overall day seems pretty accurate with the Fitbit so I've quit using the HRM. I've continued losing weight at the same rate.
Margin-ites unite!!!!
Thanks for the edited addition about the Fitbit. I'm thinking of getting one, especially when I get to maintenance. Though I'll likely be stuck entering my data for pool activities.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »I'm a Margin-ite. 5'2.5," 65 years old and close to goal having lost 48lbs with 4-6lbs left to hit maintenance. I'm set at 1200 calories but rarely eat so few. I eat back about half to three quarters of my exercise calories so my net is always below 1200. Now, so close to goal, I'm only losing about a pound per month. I feel great, I'm active (working out 4Xs per week lifting weights and some cardio), and fairly energetic for a 65 soon to be 66 year old.
I used to worry about netting under 1200 cals but since all systems are go I just ignore the net and stick with my 1200 plus exercise calories. I've been able to cut my meds back by half (blood pressure, cholesterol) and my doctor is happy. It's working for me.
Edited to add: I'm using a Fitbit Charge HR to track my calories burned with both the Fitbit and MFP set to 1200 calories with the negative calorie adjustment enabled on MFP. I checked the Fitbit against my Polar FT7 for gym exercise only and my overall day seems pretty accurate with the Fitbit so I've quit using the HRM. I've continued losing weight at the same rate.
Margin-ites unite!!!!
Thanks for the edited addition about the Fitbit. I'm thinking of getting one, especially when I get to maintenance. Though I'll likely be stuck entering my data for pool activities.
Maybe a Margin-ite Unite group?
Get the Fitbit now because the longer you wear it, the more accurate it becomes (creepy, right?). Yea, not waterproof, but you can guesstamate the pool stuff. 0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »I'm a Margin-ite. 5'2.5," 65 years old and close to goal having lost 48lbs with 4-6lbs left to hit maintenance. I'm set at 1200 calories but rarely eat so few. I eat back about half to three quarters of my exercise calories so my net is always below 1200. Now, so close to goal, I'm only losing about a pound per month. I feel great, I'm active (working out 4Xs per week lifting weights and some cardio), and fairly energetic for a 65 soon to be 66 year old.
I used to worry about netting under 1200 cals but since all systems are go I just ignore the net and stick with my 1200 plus exercise calories. I've been able to cut my meds back by half (blood pressure, cholesterol) and my doctor is happy. It's working for me.
Edited to add: I'm using a Fitbit Charge HR to track my calories burned with both the Fitbit and MFP set to 1200 calories with the negative calorie adjustment enabled on MFP. I checked the Fitbit against my Polar FT7 for gym exercise only and my overall day seems pretty accurate with the Fitbit so I've quit using the HRM. I've continued losing weight at the same rate.
Margin-ites unite!!!!
Thanks for the edited addition about the Fitbit. I'm thinking of getting one, especially when I get to maintenance. Though I'll likely be stuck entering my data for pool activities.
Maybe a Margin-ite Unite group? Get the Fitbit now because the longer you wear it, the more accurate it becomes (creepy, right?). Yea, not waterproof, but you can guesstamate the pool stuff.
Honestly I don't think you need the HRM version .. you could save money and get a one or a zip or similar - it still learns to be remarkably accurate
HRM is for steady-state cardio only
edit to add .. I don't mean to imply you need a fitbit .. only if it's the kind of toy / data you like (I like these types of things)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