How Negative are you??? I am aiming for -500
Options
Replies
-
blankiefinder wrote: »I would suggest to start eating back half at least
@blankiefinder - Can someone explain this eating back exercise calories to me? Once you have a deficit setup in MFP it takes logged exercise into account.
So in other words if I have it set for 1.5lb/wk and it thinks sedentary daily burn is 2000 it will give me a 1250 target. If I then go ride easy for 90 mins and burn 1300 kcal, that target is then adjusted to 2550 to maintain my 750 kcal deficit.
If I only ate half of those back...I'd be eating 1900 kcal on a day where I burned 3300 kcal, for a total deficit of 1400 kcal. Which is a pretty absurd deficit. I'd be ravenous and constantly hungry within a day or two.
Because MFP tends to overestimate calorie burns. If you have an accurate way of measuring calorie burn, feel free to eat them all back. But if you are using MFP estimates, start by eating back 50-75% to compensate for overestimation.0 -
Jkowals123 wrote: »I don't know how many calories to eat a day when I burn 900.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/833026/important-posts-to-read/p10 -
blankiefinder wrote: »I would suggest to start eating back half at least
@blankiefinder - Can someone explain this eating back exercise calories to me? Once you have a deficit setup in MFP it takes logged exercise into account.
So in other words if I have it set for 1.5lb/wk and it thinks sedentary daily burn is 2000 it will give me a 1250 target. If I then go ride easy for 90 mins and burn 1300 kcal, that target is then adjusted to 2550 to maintain my 750 kcal deficit.
If I only ate half of those back...I'd be eating 1900 kcal on a day where I burned 3300 kcal, for a total deficit of 1400 kcal. Which is a pretty absurd deficit. I'd be ravenous and constantly hungry within a day or two.
While it does ask you what your exercise minute goals are, it does not include that in your calculated daily goal. You are supposed to eat to the line that says : remaining calories, with the goal of getting that up close to 0. How I did that was to reduce the calories credited when logging exercise, and then eating to that number.
start here: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10257474/starting-out-restarting-basics-inside#latest
and taken from here http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/818082/exercise-calories-again-wtf/p1In other words:
You tell MFP: I'd like to lose 1lb/week.
MFP says: Hey, you should eat X calories every day to lose 1lb/week.
You then decide to exercise and you burn 400 calories.
MFP says: Hey you pecker, you said you wanted to lose 1lb/week. Now you need to eat X+400 because you told me you wanted to lose 1lb/week.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »
Beyond that, where are you getting your burn number from and are you comparing that to other sources. If you're just getting it from the data base, it's likely inflated...one really has to work very hard just to burn 10 calories per minute above their basal burn and that type of effort is difficult for the average person to sustain for a significant amount of time.
That's like running at 10:00-11:00 pace for a 150lb person, or cycling at 150w. Not exactly what I would call hard efforts for the majority of people.
1000kcal an hour? Yea, that's something that's difficult for the average person to sustain.
Since the OP is logging her runs as 6 or 6.7 mph I'm going to assume she isn't making numbers up and is putting the pace she actually ran, meaning the calories should be reasonably close.
Not for your average relatively fit person...I would wager that the majority of people aren't particularly fit.
Maybe I missed it, but I'm not seeing anything from the OP in RE to running 6 - 6.7 MPH. I don't see any mention of what exercise was actually being performed at all. At any rate, I believe people should be ultra conservative with exercise burns when using the MFP method0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »While it does ask you what your exercise minute goals are, it does not include that in your calculated daily goal. You are supposed to eat to the line that says : remaining calories, with the goal of getting that up close to 0.
This is how I understand it, yea. While it won't default adjust for your exercise goal, MFP has an option to log your exercise. If you go under exercise -> add exercise, then select your activity and enter the duration it will then add those calories to your log, and "give" you the extra calories to eat as part of that goal. In other words if I log a bike ride that burns 1300kcal, my green number will increase by 1300 kcal.
So, I'm using a food scale meticulously to dial in the calories side. Exercise cals are known.
The only reason I can see to eat back exercise cals is either:
1)Insurance against inaccurate cals in/cals out
2)The BMR * 1.2 for sedentary calculation used on MFP tends to be overly generous
But if we assume that food and exercise cals are accurate, and that MFP's estimate of daily expenditure for BMR, Sedentary is passably accurate, it seems that eating food calories back would lead to a larger than targeted deficit.In other words:
You tell MFP: I'd like to lose 1lb/week.
MFP says: Hey, you should eat X calories every day to lose 1lb/week.
You then decide to exercise and you burn 400 calories.
MFP says: Hey you pecker, you said you wanted to lose 1lb/week. Now you need to eat X+400 because you told me you wanted to lose 1lb/week.
This is where I'm getting lost. What is written there sounds like my understanding of the situation. But the OP of that topic then follows up with:If you are using MFP to tell you how many calories to eat, you should probably be eating back some portion of your exercise calories.
Still not sure what that is based of. It's either meant as insurance, or we are assuming that MFP's baseline sedentary setting is just plain overestimated for the typical person.
0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »I would suggest to start eating back half at least
@blankiefinder - Can someone explain this eating back exercise calories to me? Once you have a deficit setup in MFP it takes logged exercise into account.
So in other words if I have it set for 1.5lb/wk and it thinks sedentary daily burn is 2000 it will give me a 1250 target. If I then go ride easy for 90 mins and burn 1300 kcal, that target is then adjusted to 2550 to maintain my 750 kcal deficit.
If I only ate half of those back...I'd be eating 1900 kcal on a day where I burned 3300 kcal, for a total deficit of 1400 kcal. Which is a pretty absurd deficit. I'd be ravenous and constantly hungry within a day or two.
Because MFP tends to overestimate calorie burns. If you have an accurate way of measuring calorie burn, feel free to eat them all back. But if you are using MFP estimates, start by eating back 50-75% to compensate for overestimation.
This makes sense. In my case calories burned come from my power meter and known efficiency, so I'm confident that the calories I'm burning are accurate within 2%.
For clarification purposes, it tends to estimate calorie burns from exercise? Or the equation it uses to determine the sedentary individual's calories needs, sans exercise, are too high for the typical individual?
0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »I would suggest to start eating back half at least
@blankiefinder - Can someone explain this eating back exercise calories to me? Once you have a deficit setup in MFP it takes logged exercise into account.
So in other words if I have it set for 1.5lb/wk and it thinks sedentary daily burn is 2000 it will give me a 1250 target. If I then go ride easy for 90 mins and burn 1300 kcal, that target is then adjusted to 2550 to maintain my 750 kcal deficit.
If I only ate half of those back...I'd be eating 1900 kcal on a day where I burned 3300 kcal, for a total deficit of 1400 kcal. Which is a pretty absurd deficit. I'd be ravenous and constantly hungry within a day or two.
Because MFP tends to overestimate calorie burns. If you have an accurate way of measuring calorie burn, feel free to eat them all back. But if you are using MFP estimates, start by eating back 50-75% to compensate for overestimation.
This makes sense. In my case calories burned come from my power meter and known efficiency, so I'm confident that the calories I'm burning are accurate within 2%.
For clarification purposes, it tends to estimate calorie burns from exercise? Or the equation it uses to determine the sedentary individual's calories needs, sans exercise, are too high for the typical individual?
Exercise specifically. I'd log an hour on the elliptical and it would tell me I burned about 1000 calories. I overwrote that number with 600 which I felt was a much better estimate, and I lost at the expected rate. (If MFP's estimation had been right I would have lost faster than expected. )0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »I would suggest to start eating back half at least
@blankiefinder - Can someone explain this eating back exercise calories to me? Once you have a deficit setup in MFP it takes logged exercise into account.
So in other words if I have it set for 1.5lb/wk and it thinks sedentary daily burn is 2000 it will give me a 1250 target. If I then go ride easy for 90 mins and burn 1300 kcal, that target is then adjusted to 2550 to maintain my 750 kcal deficit.
If I only ate half of those back...I'd be eating 1900 kcal on a day where I burned 3300 kcal, for a total deficit of 1400 kcal. Which is a pretty absurd deficit. I'd be ravenous and constantly hungry within a day or two.
Because MFP tends to overestimate calorie burns. If you have an accurate way of measuring calorie burn, feel free to eat them all back. But if you are using MFP estimates, start by eating back 50-75% to compensate for overestimation.
This makes sense. In my case calories burned come from my power meter and known efficiency, so I'm confident that the calories I'm burning are accurate within 2%.
For clarification purposes, it tends to estimate calorie burns from exercise? Or the equation it uses to determine the sedentary individual's calories needs, sans exercise, are too high for the typical individual?
The first one0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »I would suggest to start eating back half at least
@blankiefinder - Can someone explain this eating back exercise calories to me? Once you have a deficit setup in MFP it takes logged exercise into account.
So in other words if I have it set for 1.5lb/wk and it thinks sedentary daily burn is 2000 it will give me a 1250 target. If I then go ride easy for 90 mins and burn 1300 kcal, that target is then adjusted to 2550 to maintain my 750 kcal deficit.
If I only ate half of those back...I'd be eating 1900 kcal on a day where I burned 3300 kcal, for a total deficit of 1400 kcal. Which is a pretty absurd deficit. I'd be ravenous and constantly hungry within a day or two.
MFP is not based on TDEE -15-25%. It's based on the NEAT method. This means the number it gives you is not only at a deficit (if you choose to lose weight) but it also means exercise is not configured in like the TDEE method. This is why you eat your exercise calories back because that's how MFP is set up.0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »I would suggest to start eating back half at least
@blankiefinder - Can someone explain this eating back exercise calories to me? Once you have a deficit setup in MFP it takes logged exercise into account.
So in other words if I have it set for 1.5lb/wk and it thinks sedentary daily burn is 2000 it will give me a 1250 target. If I then go ride easy for 90 mins and burn 1300 kcal, that target is then adjusted to 2550 to maintain my 750 kcal deficit.
If I only ate half of those back...I'd be eating 1900 kcal on a day where I burned 3300 kcal, for a total deficit of 1400 kcal. Which is a pretty absurd deficit. I'd be ravenous and constantly hungry within a day or two.
MFP is not based on TDEE -15-25%. It's based on the NEAT method. This means the number it gives you is not only at a deficit (if you choose to lose weight) but it also means exercise is not configured in like the TDEE method. This is why you eat your exercise calories back because that's how MFP is set up.
So you're saying that you SHOULD eat your exercise calories back? This makes sense to me, assuming you are confident in MFP's estimate of TDEE - EAT, your weighing and logging, and how many calories you are actually burning when you work out.
The gist of what I am getting from people's posts saying to not eat back exercise calories or eat back 50% exercise calories is that this serves more or less as an 'insurance' in case you're under logging food or over estimating the calories you burn exercising.0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »I would suggest to start eating back half at least
@blankiefinder - Can someone explain this eating back exercise calories to me? Once you have a deficit setup in MFP it takes logged exercise into account.
So in other words if I have it set for 1.5lb/wk and it thinks sedentary daily burn is 2000 it will give me a 1250 target. If I then go ride easy for 90 mins and burn 1300 kcal, that target is then adjusted to 2550 to maintain my 750 kcal deficit.
If I only ate half of those back...I'd be eating 1900 kcal on a day where I burned 3300 kcal, for a total deficit of 1400 kcal. Which is a pretty absurd deficit. I'd be ravenous and constantly hungry within a day or two.
MFP is not based on TDEE -15-25%. It's based on the NEAT method. This means the number it gives you is not only at a deficit (if you choose to lose weight) but it also means exercise is not configured in like the TDEE method. This is why you eat your exercise calories back because that's how MFP is set up.
So you're saying that you SHOULD eat your exercise calories back? This makes sense to me, assuming you are confident in MFP's estimate of TDEE - EAT, your weighing and logging, and how many calories you are actually burning when you work out.
The gist of what I am getting from people's posts saying to not eat back exercise calories or eat back 50% exercise calories is that this serves more or less as an 'insurance' in case you're under logging food or over estimating the calories you burn exercising.
If you are confident in your burns and intake, then yes, eat back all your exercise calories and track your rate of loss, adjusting if necessary based on that rate of loss over time.0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »I would suggest to start eating back half at least
@blankiefinder - Can someone explain this eating back exercise calories to me? Once you have a deficit setup in MFP it takes logged exercise into account.
So in other words if I have it set for 1.5lb/wk and it thinks sedentary daily burn is 2000 it will give me a 1250 target. If I then go ride easy for 90 mins and burn 1300 kcal, that target is then adjusted to 2550 to maintain my 750 kcal deficit.
If I only ate half of those back...I'd be eating 1900 kcal on a day where I burned 3300 kcal, for a total deficit of 1400 kcal. Which is a pretty absurd deficit. I'd be ravenous and constantly hungry within a day or two.
MFP is not based on TDEE -15-25%. It's based on the NEAT method. This means the number it gives you is not only at a deficit (if you choose to lose weight) but it also means exercise is not configured in like the TDEE method. This is why you eat your exercise calories back because that's how MFP is set up.
So you're saying that you SHOULD eat your exercise calories back? This makes sense to me, assuming you are confident in MFP's estimate of TDEE - EAT, your weighing and logging, and how many calories you are actually burning when you work out.
The gist of what I am getting from people's posts saying to not eat back exercise calories or eat back 50% exercise calories is that this serves more or less as an 'insurance' in case you're under logging food or over estimating the calories you burn exercising.
If you are confident in your burns and intake, then yes, eat back all your exercise calories and track your rate of loss, adjusting if necessary based on that rate of loss over time.
Okay, this is in line with my understanding. Thanks!0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »I would suggest to start eating back half at least
@blankiefinder - Can someone explain this eating back exercise calories to me? Once you have a deficit setup in MFP it takes logged exercise into account.
So in other words if I have it set for 1.5lb/wk and it thinks sedentary daily burn is 2000 it will give me a 1250 target. If I then go ride easy for 90 mins and burn 1300 kcal, that target is then adjusted to 2550 to maintain my 750 kcal deficit.
If I only ate half of those back...I'd be eating 1900 kcal on a day where I burned 3300 kcal, for a total deficit of 1400 kcal. Which is a pretty absurd deficit. I'd be ravenous and constantly hungry within a day or two.
MFP is not based on TDEE -15-25%. It's based on the NEAT method. This means the number it gives you is not only at a deficit (if you choose to lose weight) but it also means exercise is not configured in like the TDEE method. This is why you eat your exercise calories back because that's how MFP is set up.
So you're saying that you SHOULD eat your exercise calories back? This makes sense to me, assuming you are confident in MFP's estimate of TDEE - EAT, your weighing and logging, and how many calories you are actually burning when you work out.
The gist of what I am getting from people's posts saying to not eat back exercise calories or eat back 50% exercise calories is that this serves more or less as an 'insurance' in case you're under logging food or over estimating the calories you burn exercising.
Yes. You should eat exercise calories back. Everything is an estimate, though. Calculators aren't going to be exact because it's basing it's calculations on the average. Some people's #s might end up being less than the average, and some might be more.
The burns calculated by MFP (and most calculators) can come off exaggerated.
My take on that is - if you are logging consistently and weighing your food and you're not losing after 4-6 weeks, then consider that how you're logging your exercise might be exaggerating the burn. If that's really the case then you could consider manually edit the burn logged by half and see how that goes.
If you're wearing a tracking device, then consider manually adjusting your goals by a 100-200 calories and see how that goes.
Overall, again, it's all an estimate but this site's methods are based on the user eating exercise calories back.0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »I would suggest to start eating back half at least
@blankiefinder - Can someone explain this eating back exercise calories to me? Once you have a deficit setup in MFP it takes logged exercise into account.
So in other words if I have it set for 1.5lb/wk and it thinks sedentary daily burn is 2000 it will give me a 1250 target. If I then go ride easy for 90 mins and burn 1300 kcal, that target is then adjusted to 2550 to maintain my 750 kcal deficit.
If I only ate half of those back...I'd be eating 1900 kcal on a day where I burned 3300 kcal, for a total deficit of 1400 kcal. Which is a pretty absurd deficit. I'd be ravenous and constantly hungry within a day or two.
MFP is not based on TDEE -15-25%. It's based on the NEAT method. This means the number it gives you is not only at a deficit (if you choose to lose weight) but it also means exercise is not configured in like the TDEE method. This is why you eat your exercise calories back because that's how MFP is set up.
So you're saying that you SHOULD eat your exercise calories back? This makes sense to me, assuming you are confident in MFP's estimate of TDEE - EAT, your weighing and logging, and how many calories you are actually burning when you work out.
The gist of what I am getting from people's posts saying to not eat back exercise calories or eat back 50% exercise calories is that this serves more or less as an 'insurance' in case you're under logging food or over estimating the calories you burn exercising.
If you are confident in your burns and intake, then yes, eat back all your exercise calories and track your rate of loss, adjusting if necessary based on that rate of loss over time.
Okay, this is in line with my understanding. Thanks!
Btw. Calories on the power meter do not represent calories burned by the body to achieve those power meter ratings.
That 2%? Here is some food for thought.
Put your bike on rollers. Hammer down, make sure the room is not very ventilated. That gallon of sweat you let off? How do you think it got there? Energy expenditure? Heat? Power meters measure mechanical output. They don't measure physiological output. Don't confuse power output with burned calories. One can be an estimate for the other but nothing more.0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »I would suggest to start eating back half at least
@blankiefinder - Can someone explain this eating back exercise calories to me? Once you have a deficit setup in MFP it takes logged exercise into account.
So in other words if I have it set for 1.5lb/wk and it thinks sedentary daily burn is 2000 it will give me a 1250 target. If I then go ride easy for 90 mins and burn 1300 kcal, that target is then adjusted to 2550 to maintain my 750 kcal deficit.
If I only ate half of those back...I'd be eating 1900 kcal on a day where I burned 3300 kcal, for a total deficit of 1400 kcal. Which is a pretty absurd deficit. I'd be ravenous and constantly hungry within a day or two.
MFP is not based on TDEE -15-25%. It's based on the NEAT method. This means the number it gives you is not only at a deficit (if you choose to lose weight) but it also means exercise is not configured in like the TDEE method. This is why you eat your exercise calories back because that's how MFP is set up.
So you're saying that you SHOULD eat your exercise calories back? This makes sense to me, assuming you are confident in MFP's estimate of TDEE - EAT, your weighing and logging, and how many calories you are actually burning when you work out.
The gist of what I am getting from people's posts saying to not eat back exercise calories or eat back 50% exercise calories is that this serves more or less as an 'insurance' in case you're under logging food or over estimating the calories you burn exercising.
True
But I think the thing missing from this conversation is the importance of ongoing feedback from your body
So eat back 50%, monitor your average weight loss over 6-8 weeks. If losing faster than expected eat back a higher percentage ...continue the feedback loop on a rolling basis
Doesn't matter what numbers your trackers spit out ...what matters is how your body is working
The machines, the databases, the logging are all guideline estimates ..and they're good enough if used properly0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Calories on the power meter do not represent calories burned by the body to achieve those power meter ratings.
Correct.
They represent and measure the requisite mechanical energy applied to wherever the given brand of powermeter measures power at.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »They don't measure physiological output.
Directly? No, they don't.
However, they are still a very, very good estimate. Human efficiency on the bike is well studied, and ranges between 21%-27% are generally found across all studies I've seen. In my case I've been tested in the lab and know that I'm 22% efficient. So in my specific case that is narrowed done. If mechanical output is 240w, total physiologic output is 1090w.
Which means that when I'm cruising along at mechanical output of 240w, total output is 1,090w. Over on hour that ends up being 3.924kj / 4.186 kj/kcal and you get 937 kcal.
Even for people that might not know GME, you're still looking at a range of 21-27%, with values above 25% being hotly debated. So one the high end you have 1,032 kcal, and on the low end 825 kj. Most common general calculation from kj -> kcal seems to be to assume 23.9% efficiency for the simple 1:1 relationship, so using that estimate you're looking at being off by no worse than 100 kcal on either side. Pretty good accuracy. More than enough that if you're running a 500 kcal/day deficit it won't throw you off in any way.
In my case, having lab tested efficiency, I can be confident to more or less PM accuracy which is generally taken to be +/- 1.5%.
0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »I would suggest to start eating back half at least
@blankiefinder - Can someone explain this eating back exercise calories to me? Once you have a deficit setup in MFP it takes logged exercise into account.
So in other words if I have it set for 1.5lb/wk and it thinks sedentary daily burn is 2000 it will give me a 1250 target. If I then go ride easy for 90 mins and burn 1300 kcal, that target is then adjusted to 2550 to maintain my 750 kcal deficit.
If I only ate half of those back...I'd be eating 1900 kcal on a day where I burned 3300 kcal, for a total deficit of 1400 kcal. Which is a pretty absurd deficit. I'd be ravenous and constantly hungry within a day or two.
MFP is not based on TDEE -15-25%. It's based on the NEAT method. This means the number it gives you is not only at a deficit (if you choose to lose weight) but it also means exercise is not configured in like the TDEE method. This is why you eat your exercise calories back because that's how MFP is set up.
So you're saying that you SHOULD eat your exercise calories back? This makes sense to me, assuming you are confident in MFP's estimate of TDEE - EAT, your weighing and logging, and how many calories you are actually burning when you work out.
The gist of what I am getting from people's posts saying to not eat back exercise calories or eat back 50% exercise calories is that this serves more or less as an 'insurance' in case you're under logging food or over estimating the calories you burn exercising.
True
But I think the thing missing from this conversation is the importance of ongoing feedback from your body
So eat back 50%, monitor your average weight loss over 6-8 weeks. If losing faster than expected eat back a higher percentage ...continue the feedback loop on a rolling basis
Doesn't matter what numbers your trackers spit out ...what matters is how your body is working
The machines, the databases, the logging are all guideline estimates ..and they're good enough if used properly
Couldn't agree more on the checking yourself with the actual results. If you're logging 500 kcal/day deficit according to MFP, weighing food meticulously, and a month later your weight is unchanged it becomes very clear that your estimations need to be altered.0 -
Bah...missed there was a whole second page. Others already got you covered. And better than I ever could to boot. Listen to them.
0 -
grinning_chick wrote: »Bah...missed there was a whole second page. Others already got you covered. And better than I ever could to boot. Listen to them.
Good thing I refreshed, as I was about to respond to the unedited post you made.
But regardless of TDEE or daily calculations, it really comes down to the feedback loop for people trying to control weight. All the data in the world is often trumped at the scale. But the data still has good uses regardless.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions