"Eat back half your exercise calories"
Options
Replies
-
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »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.
This.
Probably based on HRM calorie burn estimates - and not even the better HRM's with good calorie burn formula either.
HRM for lifting is going to be inflated - look at how long it usually takes a high HR to finally drift down to match the HR of actually sitting there waiting or resting. That's inflated HR and calorie burn that whole time coming down, worse as the session progresses usually because it never lowers all the way.
And if they are doing cardio between the lifts because they like the idea of burning more, then it could be a truer estimate but still inflated the whole time by good 10-15 bpm.
That is a tad higher than the inflated values I've seen, so they may be doing something else and calling it lifting - but not what we consider lifting.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »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.
This.
Probably based on HRM calorie burn estimates - and not even the better HRM's with good calorie burn formula either.
HRM for lifting is going to be inflated - look at how long it usually takes a high HR to finally drift down to match the HR of actually sitting there waiting or resting. That's inflated HR and calorie burn that whole time coming down, worse as the session progresses usually because it never lowers all the way.
And if they are doing cardio between the lifts because they like the idea of burning more, then it could be a truer estimate but still inflated the whole time by good 10-15 bpm.
That is a tad higher than the inflated values I've seen, so they may be doing something else and calling it lifting - but not what we consider lifting.
I would bet that this is it ^. The increased heart rate is creating a false higer calorie burn reading on devices.
It is sort if like when I wear my Jawbone UP. If I forget to take it off it reads higher steps when I do thongs like painting the house or furniture. Lol. Then it says I burned all kinds of calories when I really didn't.
That is why I chose an activity level as my average for TDEE and don't subtract exercise calories. That works GREAT at maintenance, however I need a new tactic to lose 10 more pounds.
1 -
Higher not higer. Typo0
-
This is another question that's occurred to me - people say mfp's estimates are off, and you should use a heart rate monitor, but I don't see that as particularly accurate - in fact it seems a bit arbitrary. If you're unfit, you'll get an elevated heart rate just putting the shopping away, and your heart rate after exercise will stay elevated for a long time even if you didn't burn much - whereas a professional athlete could work at high intensity with a much lower heart rate, and will read as burning far fewer calories than the noob, even if they are burning exactly the same.
It's like trying to assess fuel consumption by listening to how loud the engine is. Seems to me an estimate based on actual information about the type and duration of the activity would be better than that - even if that estimate isn't perfect.
Unless there's something I'm missing here?4 -
I must be missing something too then.. As the heart rate monitors don't make sense to me either, there's just too many variables.1
-
As another example of this, I suffer from chronic anxiety. If I forget to take my pills, my heart rate will elevate. If I then contemplate death or taxes, it'll go up again. If I were wearing a monitor, it would tell mfp that I've been burning all sorts of calories when I haven't.
I believe there is a correlation between heart rate and calorie burn, but it is far from simple. A high heart rate makes more oxygen available to burn calories, but your body is not obliged to use it. In the anxiety example, the elevated heart rate comes first, in expectation of exercise (fight or flight), but if there's no exercise, there will be no extra burn regardless how fast the heart goes.
And then again, just heart rate can't even tell you how much oxygen is delivered, it depends on heart volume, lung function, altitude, air quality... and we all know there's a difference between a quick, shallow pulse and a steady strong pulse - does the fitbit know that?
Like @Christine_72 said, too many variables.0 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »This is another question that's occurred to me - people say mfp's estimates are off, and you should use a heart rate monitor, but I don't see that as particularly accurate - in fact it seems a bit arbitrary. If you're unfit, you'll get an elevated heart rate just putting the shopping away, and your heart rate after exercise will stay elevated for a long time even if you didn't burn much - whereas a professional athlete could work at high intensity with a much lower heart rate, and will read as burning far fewer calories than the noob, even if they are burning exactly the same.
It's like trying to assess fuel consumption by listening to how loud the engine is. Seems to me an estimate based on actual information about the type and duration of the activity would be better than that - even if that estimate isn't perfect.
Unless there's something I'm missing here?
That is exactly what I thought about and is a good point that an unfit person will get out of breath and have a higher heart rate just climbing stairs or doing light housework. It wouldn't even blip up an athlete's HR very much. Hmmmmm.0 -
There is good correlation between STEADY STATE heart rate and calories burned and more so for men than for women.
Having said that... most of the "fitbit" type devices are not terrible when it comes to estimating your WHOLE DAY (any one activity may be off; but the whole day tends to be within 10% or so).
When you connect a Fitbit to MFP you get a whole day TDEE adjustment which is mislabeled as an exercise adjustment. Your Fitbit adjustment is NOT exercise... it is everything measured by the device.
MFP is also not terribly off assuming you picked correctly. By that I mean maybe you picked basketball because you shot some hoops. But MFP's basketball maybe assumes a college level 5 on 5 game. Obviously the burns are not the same. *I have no idea what MFP assumes for basketball or most anything else. I suspect that they use the compendium of physical activities' MET tables... like almost everyone else.*
More on HRM:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3761702/
https://sites.google.com/a/smartcoaching.org/home/other-articles/polarhrm.pdf?attredirects=1
http://www.braydenwm.com/calburn.htm0 -
Just don't apply the 50% rule if you have an activity tracker. I did that and lost a lot of muscle from undereating.0
-
I think the oddest thing I have seen logged is meal prep.
I used to do monthly cooking. Cook all my meals for the month over a weekend. I have also cooked professionally and when you are chopping & slicing for 6-8 hours at that speed it's not 'incidental' I think I logged half of it. For a 'normal' day I would say no, but if they were doing what I used to do I would say they were fine to log it.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.
Mine are nowhere near right. This is my second time going through this. The first time I picked sedentary, logged all my exercise and ate most of it back. That worked great for about 60 lbs, then I switched to TDEE and that worked for another 10 or so, then nothing I could find worked. Since I am now 60 lbs lighter than I was the first time and doing WAY LESS activity I went with lightly active with 1 workout / week and I normally don't eat back the calories. On occasion if I want a treat or something I will but I found that eating them all back does not work for me when I get down to a certain weight. I eat @1200-1500 calories in total and it's currently working. When it stops I will re-*kitten* again.CattOfTheGarage wrote: »@DebSozo I will be in exactly the same boat when I get closer to my goal, and I know I will need to increase my activity and make it a regular part of my life as I do not plan to eat 1200 calories a day for the rest of my life!
That would be horrible!
There is no way around this, you age, your metabolism slows, you don't weight much - you DON'T NEED to eat as much food. If I am lucky, I will have built up enough muscle mass that I 'might' be able to go up to 1300 but in the general population I don't see many old ladies (like over 60) who are eating much more. If you're short, you're going to eat even less.0 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »This is another question that's occurred to me - people say mfp's estimates are off, and you should use a heart rate monitor, but I don't see that as particularly accurate - in fact it seems a bit arbitrary. If you're unfit, you'll get an elevated heart rate just putting the shopping away, and your heart rate after exercise will stay elevated for a long time even if you didn't burn much - whereas a professional athlete could work at high intensity with a much lower heart rate, and will read as burning far fewer calories than the noob, even if they are burning exactly the same.
It's like trying to assess fuel consumption by listening to how loud the engine is. Seems to me an estimate based on actual information about the type and duration of the activity would be better than that - even if that estimate isn't perfect.
Unless there's something I'm missing here?
That is exactly what I thought about and is a good point that an unfit person will get out of breath and have a higher heart rate just climbing stairs or doing light housework. It wouldn't even blip up an athlete's HR very much. Hmmmmm.
If you have a heart condition, then you likely are going to get skewed results.
As for fit vs unfit - if you can customize VO2 max, then you can account for that. Some models allow you to. Some models do it for you.
Without being able to adjust it, it will be less accurate for the fit person.
Also regarding steady state cardio - some of the newer technology is supposed to be better at estimating calories outside of just steady state. My brainier friend has explained it to me and gave me the study but I dont have it offhand.
This isn't saying HRMs are infallible or even the best, just adding to the discussion.
1 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »This is another question that's occurred to me - people say mfp's estimates are off, and you should use a heart rate monitor, but I don't see that as particularly accurate - in fact it seems a bit arbitrary. If you're unfit, you'll get an elevated heart rate just putting the shopping away, and your heart rate after exercise will stay elevated for a long time even if you didn't burn much - whereas a professional athlete could work at high intensity with a much lower heart rate, and will read as burning far fewer calories than the noob, even if they are burning exactly the same.
It's like trying to assess fuel consumption by listening to how loud the engine is. Seems to me an estimate based on actual information about the type and duration of the activity would be better than that - even if that estimate isn't perfect.
Unless there's something I'm missing here?
The better HRM-based systems don't just use your pulse rate. They use variability in beat-to-beat timing (HRV).
For example, let's say your pulse is a solid 120 bpm for an hour. You'd think that means your heart is beating like a metronome every 500 ms, but that's not the case at all. Maybe 400 ms, 700 ms, 500 ms, 800 ms, etc, which averages out to 120 bpm.
The patterns in HRV tell a much more complete story than simple pulse rate. It looks entirely different based on things like how much affect your sympathetic versus your parasympathetic nervous system have on your heart. I've had two different running watches that have both been able to nail my lactate threshold at 165 bpm almost every time I've run with either of them, based on HRV; I think that's pretty impressive.1 -
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.
If you're having problems remembering how much to eat back and don't mind the reports not reflecting the actual amount of calories burned, then when you enter the exercise, only input half the length of time exercised.
this. I just log half of my exercise minutes. no extra math required. easy peasy.1 -
I log half the calories. If MFP says I burned 600, I manually change it to 300... No, it doesn't hurt my brain to figure this out.3
-
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »I see a lot of people saying "eat back half your exercise calories" or "eat back a third" or whatever. Am I the only one who thinks this is a super complicated way to approach things? Seems like it would involve a lot of mental arithmetic at the moment of deciding whether to eat something or not.
If I'm worried mfp might overestimate exercise calories, I just enter fewer minutes - so maybe I walked for 20min but I'll only enter 15. That way I can still just look at the calories remaining and know whether to eat the thing or not. No on the spot mathematical gymnastics.
Anyone else? When you say "I only eat half my exercise calories", what do you mean? Do you enter half the minutes or are you always juggling the numbers from your latest workout in your head? I feel it could be helpful to get this clarified, especially for beginners.
And a related question: what is your basis for thinking mfp overestimates burn (as opposed to users overestimating intensity or length of workout)? I've seen a lot of people say it but I don't know what they're basing it on. Fitbit readings? Experience with slower than expected loss? Personally if I under-log exercise it's because I reckon I overestimate intensity or time - my own experience has not pointed to any issue with mfp's numbers for exercise. But then I eyeball my food, so I can't use my results as scientific evidence of anything.
I used to read comments about eating back the calories that were burned during exercise and I used to think everyone was crazy. To me, the point of busting my *kitten* working out and exercising was help accelerate my weight loss. Then one day, after reading about eating back calories for the 10th time, it finally clicked.
When you diet, you are already at a calorie deficit. If you typically ate 2000 calories a day, and you want to lose a pound a week, you cut your caloric intake to 1500 a day. Great, you are going to lose weight... but now you start exercising and burning more calories..lets say 200 from moderate bike riding... now instead of the planned 1500 a day, your at 1300. So if you want to maintain your 1500, you have to eat back the 200 you burned. If you set your calorie intake low in the first place to lose as much weight as possible without starving yourself....now with the added calorie deficit from exercising, your body could go into starvation mode and you won't lose any weight at all.
Anyways, that's my take on "eating back calories". I don't always follow it, but I do sometimes... especially when I want a treat lol
Good luck with your weight loss!
0 -
There is no way for me to know how many calories I actually burn exercising even with my chest strap.
I have friends who log 'chores' and 'house cleaning'... eat back 400+ calories a day from their normal 'exercises' and wonder why they can't lose half a pound for 2-3 months.
I personally don't eat back my exercise calories (I am extremely sedentary) unless I am hungry or feeling weak... exercise is a buffer in case my calorie counting is off.
The MFP estimates are nuts.. 30 minutes on the elliptical the database says it burns 600+ calories for me but my exercise machine says it's around 325/350
I agree with you Lisa... It seems like MFP gives a lot of credit for exercising. I've seen people who put the same amount of time as I do on the stationary bike and the bike tells me I've burned "such and such" and MFP is ALWAY more than the bike tells me. Unless that bike is a lying S.O.B.!! LOL
1 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »This is another question that's occurred to me - people say mfp's estimates are off, and you should use a heart rate monitor, but I don't see that as particularly accurate - in fact it seems a bit arbitrary. If you're unfit, you'll get an elevated heart rate just putting the shopping away, and your heart rate after exercise will stay elevated for a long time even if you didn't burn much - whereas a professional athlete could work at high intensity with a much lower heart rate, and will read as burning far fewer calories than the noob, even if they are burning exactly the same.
It's like trying to assess fuel consumption by listening to how loud the engine is. Seems to me an estimate based on actual information about the type and duration of the activity would be better than that - even if that estimate isn't perfect.
Unless there's something I'm missing here?
Getting a VO2max estimate is what takes care of high and low heart rates during exercise between people, or even for the same person moving from unfit to fit.
Except for the extremes of the fit/unfit range, which you mention above - the formula's, even the worse ones Polar uses - can get decent, but make some potentially bad assumptions that can be fooled.
The cheaper Polars use a system looking at your BMI (weight/height) to decide if your fitness level is good or bad for you (age/gender) on like a VO2max scale, with a calculated HRmax 220-age.
But you can easily have a very unfit skinny person, and fit overweight person - and that BMI assumption would be backwards.
Also, especially at the start - you make fitness improvements faster so even if bad BMI was true for bad fitness level (VO2max) at some point, you can get fitter faster than you can get lighter.
So the BMI is staying in poor range, but actually VO2max is improving.
That's why the nicer Polar's also include a restingHR test, because that helps figure out if fit or not, and helps balance out the calculated HRmax - which is now estimated on a Heart Rate Variability reading along with your selection of amount of exercise weekly.
So those things can help decently correct an otherwise bad assumption. BMI is still a factor though, but at least it's offset with these other tested known values.
But yes - elevated HR for reasons other than the actual aerobic exercise requirements - med's, heat, stress, dehydrated, ect - throw the whole means of it being decent estimate out the window.
Like the Hot yoga calorie estimates based on HR. HR elevates 10-15 bpm just walking in the door and sitting there waiting. Good thing panting doesn't count (oh wait, for some Garmins it does).
2 -
jammer1963 wrote: »There is no way for me to know how many calories I actually burn exercising even with my chest strap.
I have friends who log 'chores' and 'house cleaning'... eat back 400+ calories a day from their normal 'exercises' and wonder why they can't lose half a pound for 2-3 months.
I personally don't eat back my exercise calories (I am extremely sedentary) unless I am hungry or feeling weak... exercise is a buffer in case my calorie counting is off.
The MFP estimates are nuts.. 30 minutes on the elliptical the database says it burns 600+ calories for me but my exercise machine says it's around 325/350
I agree with you Lisa... It seems like MFP gives a lot of credit for exercising. I've seen people who put the same amount of time as I do on the stationary bike and the bike tells me I've burned "such and such" and MFP is ALWAY more than the bike tells me. Unless that bike is a lying S.O.B.!! LOL
This is usually because people use the entries for outside riding for the stationary bikes (which will overstate calories burned) or because they pick "vigorous effort" or some such because it felt vigorous to them when in reality the effort (based on miles and resistance over time) is much less. I'd trust a decent machine over MFP for something like biking or rowing or elliptical, although I'd cut those too (especially elliptical).
MFP is reasonably accurate if you back out the calories you would have burned anyway for running. Outdoor biking is too variable -- hills, terrain, weather. Circuit training and classes and things like indoor biking, swimming, elliptical vary a lot based on intensity and out of shape people often think they are using more intensity than they are.2 -
I honestly would only eat back if you are at maintenance or during a bulk, but that is just me.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