"Eat back half your exercise calories"
Options
Replies
-
@DebSozoDo you have a link or is it an app?
I wonder if @_sacar is using one of @heybales spreadsheets:
Weight Loss Calculator MFP (I use this one a bunch)
Just my TDEE and Deficit Please
0 -
No, it's not those...I'll try to get it uploaded somewhere so you guys can see it.1
-
This is the best I can do. I don't think the formulas and stuff carry over to Google Sheets.0
-
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »But if you've done several bits of exercise during the day and logged them in full, you're going to have to remember how many calories to leave uneaten at the end of the day. So if I burned 100cal walking and 50 gardening and 150 at the gym and 75 cycling to the shops, and I log all that in full but only intend to eat half of them back, I have to be carrying in my head that I have to leave my calories in the green by 183 at the end of the day, and then if I log another 50 calories I have to remember to leave 208 uneaten now, and it just seems very complicated to me.
Everytime you log something just divide it by two and enter that for calories. If you go for 20 minute walk and it says 100 calories...Log 50...Lift weights for 225...Log 113...etc. Then at the end of the day you have your closed system goal1 -
KaylahDemi wrote: »When I used MFP religiously and logged every drink, meal, or exercise for EXACTLY that many minutes (no rounding), I found I lost exactly as much weight as it told me I would. I was thrilled! I am unsure how accurate calories burned from exercise are accurate for all MFP users, but mine certainly appear to be.
It also depends on the workouts, intensity, and length of time.
Exercise with a very exact intensity is much better (ran 6.5 mph) compared to none (elliptical).
MFP could easily do this better for people not using an activity tracker.
Because the idea of eating more when you do more to keep the same deficit is great - but you must only eat the more calories burned over and above what you were planning on burning anyway.
And that is what MFP estimated based on BMR x activity level you selected (say 1.25 Sedentary) = daily calories burned.
If that is estimated at say 100 cal an hour already, and you do a slow walk burning say 200/hr - then you only burned 100 more than planned, which is what your eating level is based on.
But by current MFP method - you are given that whole 200/hr - and that is probably very accurate for total calorie burn, but not what you burned above and beyond.
That is exactly why some must divide given calories by 2 for better estimate - low intensity exercise. Or they are doing an exercise less intensity than the study that provided the calorie burn.
Well - if all you did was walking for great lengths of time for workouts - you could easily wipe out a deficit because of that bad method. And for some, that difference is bigger, especially when down to last few pounds.
But if your workouts are say 800/hr because of intensity, then you still burned 700 above and beyond, and with an intense workout, probably some repair beyond the time of the workout - so the extra 100 is still used.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »Generally TDEE is calculated by the following multipliers
Little or No Exercise: TDEE = 1.2 x BMR
Light Exercise/Sports 1 to 3 Times Per Week: TDEE = 1.375 x BMR
Moderate Exercise, Sports 3 to 5 Times Per Week: TDEE = 1.55 x BMR
Heavy Exercise, Sports 6 to 7 Times Per Week: TDEE = 1.725 x BMR
Very heavy exercise (e.g., physical job; training 2x/day): TDEE = 1.9 x BMR
I've never been comfortable with this because there's so much room to get things wrong. The descriptions are vague (really: how do you know if you're heavy or very heavy exercise? flip a coin). The numbers are set in stone based on the number of times you exercise (whether it's sport or not) not how long you spend doing it or what intensity. Worse, it assumes you do basically the same exercise every week.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »Generally TDEE is calculated by the following multipliers
Little or No Exercise: TDEE = 1.2 x BMR
Light Exercise/Sports 1 to 3 Times Per Week: TDEE = 1.375 x BMR
Moderate Exercise, Sports 3 to 5 Times Per Week: TDEE = 1.55 x BMR
Heavy Exercise, Sports 6 to 7 Times Per Week: TDEE = 1.725 x BMR
Very heavy exercise (e.g., physical job; training 2x/day): TDEE = 1.9 x BMR
I've never been comfortable with this because there's so much room to get things wrong. The descriptions are vague (really: how do you know if you're heavy or very heavy exercise? flip a coin). The numbers are set in stone based on the number of times you exercise (whether it's sport or not) not how long you spend doing it or what intensity. Worse, it assumes you do basically the same exercise every week.
Exactly.
Is walking 3 x weekly the same as running the same as lifting 3 x weekly?
True, if that's only 20 min or 60 min total, that difference in the scheme of things is minor and doesn't matter as much. But what about those doing 5 x weekly workouts of some sort?
Even the charts that improve this somewhat by saying hours a week - same problem.
And what about a mail carrier doing 3 hrs weekly weight lifting compared to desk jockey compared to mom of 2 kids that all happen to have the same BMR? That's not even touched on - they obviously don't burn the same amount daily.
it's no wonder that the formula there based on the 1919 study by Harris (who did the BMR formula too) has been improved on several times (just like the BMR has been improved by say Mifflin that MFP uses).
MFP changed it's NON-exercise activity factors couple years ago based on new research showing that we do burn more than that time back then - surprisingly yes.
I think many that start using activity tracker, before they even get inspired to move more - discover the fact they are higher than even MFP's sedentary at 1.25.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »Generally TDEE is calculated by the following multipliers
Little or No Exercise: TDEE = 1.2 x BMR
Light Exercise/Sports 1 to 3 Times Per Week: TDEE = 1.375 x BMR
Moderate Exercise, Sports 3 to 5 Times Per Week: TDEE = 1.55 x BMR
Heavy Exercise, Sports 6 to 7 Times Per Week: TDEE = 1.725 x BMR
Very heavy exercise (e.g., physical job; training 2x/day): TDEE = 1.9 x BMR
I've never been comfortable with this because there's so much room to get things wrong. The descriptions are vague (really: how do you know if you're heavy or very heavy exercise? flip a coin). The numbers are set in stone based on the number of times you exercise (whether it's sport or not) not how long you spend doing it or what intensity. Worse, it assumes you do basically the same exercise every week.
Exactly.
Is walking 3 x weekly the same as running the same as lifting 3 x weekly?
True, if that's only 20 min or 60 min total, that difference in the scheme of things is minor and doesn't matter as much. But what about those doing 5 x weekly workouts of some sort?
Even the charts that improve this somewhat by saying hours a week - same problem.
And what about a mail carrier doing 3 hrs weekly weight lifting compared to desk jockey compared to mom of 2 kids that all happen to have the same BMR? That's not even touched on - they obviously don't burn the same amount daily.
it's no wonder that the formula there based on the 1919 study by Harris (who did the BMR formula too) has been improved on several times (just like the BMR has been improved by say Mifflin that MFP uses).
MFP changed it's NON-exercise activity factors couple years ago based on new research showing that we do burn more than that time back then - surprisingly yes.
I think many that start using activity tracker, before they even get inspired to move more - discover the fact they are higher than even MFP's sedentary at 1.25.
Frankly, weight lifting really should be tracked with the strength training tracking and not the cardio tracking. Not only will it not add extra calories (that are probably over-estimated), but you can only track the weight and reps. on the strength training side.0 -
Exactly.
Is walking 3 x weekly the same as running the same as lifting 3 x weekly?
True, if that's only 20 min or 60 min total, that difference in the scheme of things is minor and doesn't matter as much. But what about those doing 5 x weekly workouts of some sort?
I work a desk job. Used to commute by bike until the company moved a couple towns away, now I drive.
But I bike every day after work, I run once a week, I do a long bike ride on one weekend day and go hiking the other, and lift weights every other day. Plus I go for a walk on my lunch breaks. My Tuesday bike ride is a hill repeat workout but some days I take it pretty easy and coast a lot.
I have no idea where that puts me on the TDEE scale, I feel it's very subjective. I could be anywhere from moderate to very heavy on that scale, we're talking a difference of about 650 kCal per day. I've never been comfortable with that.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Frankly, weight lifting really should be tracked with the strength training tracking and not the cardio tracking. Not only will it not add extra calories (that are probably over-estimated), but you can only track the weight and reps. on the strength training side.
But you do burn extra calories lifting, not at same rate as cardio for sure - but you do burn more than resting.
Again - if total time doing it is 60 min weekly, with pink dumbbells - then inaccuracy isn't that great.
If 45 min x 5 weekly - then that matters, and even that lowish rate being logged should count.
The database entry is based on studies, and indeed if you don't match what was being done in the study - could be off.
But what amount off, 30% off for just that 45 min x 5 weekly isn't going to amount to much.
But that inaccuracy is better than not counting it I'd suggest.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Exactly.
Is walking 3 x weekly the same as running the same as lifting 3 x weekly?
True, if that's only 20 min or 60 min total, that difference in the scheme of things is minor and doesn't matter as much. But what about those doing 5 x weekly workouts of some sort?
I work a desk job. Used to commute by bike until the company moved a couple towns away, now I drive. But I bike every day after work, I run once a week, I do a long bike ride on one weekend day and go hiking the other, and lift weights every other day. Plus I go for a walk on my lunch breaks. My Tuesday bike ride is a hill repeat workout but some days I take it pretty easy and coast a lot.
I have no idea where that puts me on the TDEE scale, I feel it's very subjective. I could be anywhere from moderate to very heavy on that scale, we're talking a difference of about 650 kCal per day. I've never been comfortable with that.
Yeah, highly variable workouts I've found don't work well with average weekly TDEE method, nor with same eating level daily.
As big workout days you may need more after the workout then other days.
But your's isn't too wildly different - I'd bet that Just TDEE Please spreadsheet referenced above would nab it close enough on average - outside an activity tracker for daily calories and all workouts manually logged.0 -
I tell people to eat back half all the time.. as a starting point. Everyone is different, adjust as necessary. For instance, if you're eating back half and you are staying even with your calories (and logging accurately) and not losing the weight you set for your goal, then eat back less of them. The opposite also applies, eat more if you're losing weight too fast. Most of us use apps to calculate our exercise calories (including MFP) and those calculations are only estimates. If you wear a HR strap it's more accurate but still will be off by a percentage, you just have to figure out what that percentage is for you. If you adjust every 2-4 weeks you'll figure out how much you can eat back and still reach your goals. It may sound complicated but it always takes adjustment. With my HR strap and with the app I use, I can be sure that it's about 85-90% accurate, but that's for ME not everyone else. I started at 50% and moved up to around 80% of my exercise calories and it's been dead on accurate for me. I adjusted every 30 days or so until I had it zeroed in. I also stayed with the same apps and equipment, as well as the same exercise routine for the last 1+ years, so all of that helps.0
-
NorthCascades wrote: »Exactly.
Is walking 3 x weekly the same as running the same as lifting 3 x weekly?
True, if that's only 20 min or 60 min total, that difference in the scheme of things is minor and doesn't matter as much. But what about those doing 5 x weekly workouts of some sort?
I work a desk job. Used to commute by bike until the company moved a couple towns away, now I drive. But I bike every day after work, I run once a week, I do a long bike ride on one weekend day and go hiking the other, and lift weights every other day. Plus I go for a walk on my lunch breaks. My Tuesday bike ride is a hill repeat workout but some days I take it pretty easy and coast a lot.
I have no idea where that puts me on the TDEE scale, I feel it's very subjective. I could be anywhere from moderate to very heavy on that scale, we're talking a difference of about 650 kCal per day. I've never been comfortable with that.
Yeah, highly variable workouts I've found don't work well with average weekly TDEE method, nor with same eating level daily.
As big workout days you may need more after the workout then other days.
But your's isn't too wildly different - I'd bet that Just TDEE Please spreadsheet referenced above would nab it close enough on average - outside an activity tracker for daily calories and all workouts manually logged.
I've been tracking my exercise for years before I knew about MFP. There's all kinds of value in that data, sometimes it surprises me just how useful it is. I have a GPS watch now, it takes a few button presses and the data is recorded and synced here automagically.
Here's a side effect of tracking - my own personal map. The teal lines are bike rides, yellow ones are hikes, white lines are XC skis, red ones are kayak paddles, and some of the dots represent swims and rock climbs.
3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Frankly, weight lifting really should be tracked with the strength training tracking and not the cardio tracking. Not only will it not add extra calories (that are probably over-estimated), but you can only track the weight and reps. on the strength training side.
But you do burn extra calories lifting, not at same rate as cardio for sure - but you do burn more than resting.
Again - if total time doing it is 60 min weekly, with pink dumbbells - then inaccuracy isn't that great.
If 45 min x 5 weekly - then that matters, and even that lowish rate being logged should count.
The database entry is based on studies, and indeed if you don't match what was being done in the study - could be off.
But what amount off, 30% off for just that 45 min x 5 weekly isn't going to amount to much.
But that inaccuracy is better than not counting it I'd suggest.
I'm not sure what amount off it is, but when it is far enough off to be obviously and noticeably ridiculous at first glance, it is enough to prevent weight loss. Since I do usually eat back exercise calories, it is important to me that it is accurate.
Also, I use MFP to track strength progression and that can't be done under the cardio section. Technically, I suppose I could log it under both to track strength progression and to add calories, but I'm not sure I want the extra calories from the cardio section since it is so greatly over-estimated.0 -
I use MapMyWalk/Run and it states how many calories it thinks I've burned. I half that amount and log it on mfp. For me, it's not about logging the time or the level (12k pem min, 9k per min), I use the other apps for that. It's about logging those calories and eating them back to fuel my workout (or being able to have a bowl of popcorn in front of the tv later!). I do the exercise for better fitness, doesn't mean I can't enjoy the "rewards". Everyone works differently and is motivated by different reasons.0
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Frankly, weight lifting really should be tracked with the strength training tracking and not the cardio tracking. Not only will it not add extra calories (that are probably over-estimated), but you can only track the weight and reps. on the strength training side.
But you do burn extra calories lifting, not at same rate as cardio for sure - but you do burn more than resting.
Again - if total time doing it is 60 min weekly, with pink dumbbells - then inaccuracy isn't that great.
If 45 min x 5 weekly - then that matters, and even that lowish rate being logged should count.
The database entry is based on studies, and indeed if you don't match what was being done in the study - could be off.
But what amount off, 30% off for just that 45 min x 5 weekly isn't going to amount to much.
But that inaccuracy is better than not counting it I'd suggest.
I'm not sure what amount off it is, but when it is far enough off to be obviously and noticeably ridiculous at first glance, it is enough to prevent weight loss. Since I do usually eat back exercise calories, it is important to me that it is accurate.
Also, I use MFP to track strength progression and that can't be done under the cardio section. Technically, I suppose I could log it under both to track strength progression and to add calories, but I'm not sure I want the extra calories from the cardio section since it is so greatly over-estimated.
Curious why you think it's "greatly" over-estimated?
245 calories for me for an hour - my resting metabolism for 1 hr is about 100 calories. That's per calc and measured which match.
I'm sure as anything doing more work than 2 x resting metabolism burn, and I'd bet most people are.
The studies the METS is based on which the database comes from is using 5-15 reps and sets, 1-4 min rests, and heavy for you lifting - that's the entry for Weight lifting. 3.something x BMR for calorie burn.
Circuit training is the 15 and over reps, 1 min max rest, and is 8 x BMR - which is about right for something that cardio based, again heavy for you.
None of the studies are for easy maintenance style resistance training, but there are ones on bands which could be close.
But none of that is greatly over-estimated unless someone is just greatly missing a good workout, in which case what a waste of time - and I'm sure that doesn't apply to you - likely burning more than you think.3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Exactly.
Is walking 3 x weekly the same as running the same as lifting 3 x weekly?
True, if that's only 20 min or 60 min total, that difference in the scheme of things is minor and doesn't matter as much. But what about those doing 5 x weekly workouts of some sort?
I work a desk job. Used to commute by bike until the company moved a couple towns away, now I drive. But I bike every day after work, I run once a week, I do a long bike ride on one weekend day and go hiking the other, and lift weights every other day. Plus I go for a walk on my lunch breaks. My Tuesday bike ride is a hill repeat workout but some days I take it pretty easy and coast a lot.
I have no idea where that puts me on the TDEE scale, I feel it's very subjective. I could be anywhere from moderate to very heavy on that scale, we're talking a difference of about 650 kCal per day. I've never been comfortable with that.
Yeah, highly variable workouts I've found don't work well with average weekly TDEE method, nor with same eating level daily.
As big workout days you may need more after the workout then other days.
But your's isn't too wildly different - I'd bet that Just TDEE Please spreadsheet referenced above would nab it close enough on average - outside an activity tracker for daily calories and all workouts manually logged.
I've been tracking my exercise for years before I knew about MFP. There's all kinds of value in that data, sometimes it surprises me just how useful it is. I have a GPS watch now, it takes a few button presses and the data is recorded and synced here automagically.
Here's a side effect of tracking - my own personal map. The teal lines are bike rides, yellow ones are hikes, white lines are XC skis, red ones are kayak paddles, and some of the dots represent swims and rock climbs.
Going off kilter here a tad - but what GPS system is that?
I don't think I've even found something like that in Strava - though I don't have premium and not looked hard.
Mine wouldn't be that interesting though - mainly flat and square routes Kansas.2 -
Yeah, we only have 5 (?) roads in the whole state that cross the Cascade Range, which splits us north to south.
I used a (free, open source) program called MapWindow GIS to make that. I have GPX files for all my exercise so I loaded them into MW GIS then color coded them, and downloaded a MODIS satellite picture to use as a background.
I hear Strava premium lets you do your own personal heat maps. I've been doing it this way since before that was an option. And my way is more work, but gives me more control, like color coding. Wish I could find a better background image though.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Frankly, weight lifting really should be tracked with the strength training tracking and not the cardio tracking. Not only will it not add extra calories (that are probably over-estimated), but you can only track the weight and reps. on the strength training side.
But you do burn extra calories lifting, not at same rate as cardio for sure - but you do burn more than resting.
Again - if total time doing it is 60 min weekly, with pink dumbbells - then inaccuracy isn't that great.
If 45 min x 5 weekly - then that matters, and even that lowish rate being logged should count.
The database entry is based on studies, and indeed if you don't match what was being done in the study - could be off.
But what amount off, 30% off for just that 45 min x 5 weekly isn't going to amount to much.
But that inaccuracy is better than not counting it I'd suggest.
I'm not sure what amount off it is, but when it is far enough off to be obviously and noticeably ridiculous at first glance, it is enough to prevent weight loss. Since I do usually eat back exercise calories, it is important to me that it is accurate.
Also, I use MFP to track strength progression and that can't be done under the cardio section. Technically, I suppose I could log it under both to track strength progression and to add calories, but I'm not sure I want the extra calories from the cardio section since it is so greatly over-estimated.
Curious why you think it's "greatly" over-estimated?
245 calories for me for an hour - my resting metabolism for 1 hr is about 100 calories. That's per calc and measured which match.
I'm sure as anything doing more work than 2 x resting metabolism burn, and I'd bet most people are.
The studies the METS is based on which the database comes from is using 5-15 reps and sets, 1-4 min rests, and heavy for you lifting - that's the entry for Weight lifting. 3.something x BMR for calorie burn.
Circuit training is the 15 and over reps, 1 min max rest, and is 8 x BMR - which is about right for something that cardio based, again heavy for you.
None of the studies are for easy maintenance style resistance training, but there are ones on bands which could be close.
But none of that is greatly over-estimated unless someone is just greatly missing a good workout, in which case what a waste of time - and I'm sure that doesn't apply to you - likely burning more than you think.
To be honest, it wasn't based on my own calorie burn when logging weight lifting as I've never done that... it was based on what I see from my friends on feeds - 996 calories for 45 min., for example (yes, seriously). I put mine in and get 216 calories for 1 hour... doesn't sound too far off. So maybe it really isn't as far off as I think for me. I still can't track weight and reps. and probably wouldn't use the additional calories anyway, but that was an interesting experiment to try. Now just curious how others get those results.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Frankly, weight lifting really should be tracked with the strength training tracking and not the cardio tracking. Not only will it not add extra calories (that are probably over-estimated), but you can only track the weight and reps. on the strength training side.
But you do burn extra calories lifting, not at same rate as cardio for sure - but you do burn more than resting.
Again - if total time doing it is 60 min weekly, with pink dumbbells - then inaccuracy isn't that great.
If 45 min x 5 weekly - then that matters, and even that lowish rate being logged should count.
The database entry is based on studies, and indeed if you don't match what was being done in the study - could be off.
But what amount off, 30% off for just that 45 min x 5 weekly isn't going to amount to much.
But that inaccuracy is better than not counting it I'd suggest.
I'm not sure what amount off it is, but when it is far enough off to be obviously and noticeably ridiculous at first glance, it is enough to prevent weight loss. Since I do usually eat back exercise calories, it is important to me that it is accurate.
Also, I use MFP to track strength progression and that can't be done under the cardio section. Technically, I suppose I could log it under both to track strength progression and to add calories, but I'm not sure I want the extra calories from the cardio section since it is so greatly over-estimated.
Curious why you think it's "greatly" over-estimated?
245 calories for me for an hour - my resting metabolism for 1 hr is about 100 calories. That's per calc and measured which match.
I'm sure as anything doing more work than 2 x resting metabolism burn, and I'd bet most people are.
The studies the METS is based on which the database comes from is using 5-15 reps and sets, 1-4 min rests, and heavy for you lifting - that's the entry for Weight lifting. 3.something x BMR for calorie burn.
Circuit training is the 15 and over reps, 1 min max rest, and is 8 x BMR - which is about right for something that cardio based, again heavy for you.
None of the studies are for easy maintenance style resistance training, but there are ones on bands which could be close.
But none of that is greatly over-estimated unless someone is just greatly missing a good workout, in which case what a waste of time - and I'm sure that doesn't apply to you - likely burning more than you think.
To be honest, it wasn't based on my own calorie burn when logging weight lifting as I've never done that... it was based on what I see from my friends on feeds - 996 calories for 45 min., for example (yes, seriously). I put mine in and get 216 calories for 1 hour... doesn't sound too far off. So maybe it really isn't as far off as I think for me. I still can't track weight and reps. and probably wouldn't use the additional calories anyway, but that was an interesting experiment to try. Now just curious how others get those results.
I wonder if you friend's are putting in their own entries.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions