Earned calories from exercise
deethinner
Posts: 43 Member
My daily calorie range to lose weight is 1200 but when I put in my exercises (which I do 6 days a week) it adds more calories. So in order to lose weight do I still eat those calories or leave them be.
0
Replies
-
You can still lose weight without eating your exercise calories, but it's better if you eat at least some of them back (especially when you're set to 1200).
Here's a great thread that explains why: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/818082/exercise-calories-again-wtf1 -
MFP gave you 1200 calories BEFORE exercise. That way people who don't exercise eat 1200 & lose weight. People who do exercise eat more than 1200 and lose weight.
You want to eat (probably) 50-75% of those exercise calories back. Larger deficits make it harder to support existing lean muscle mass. If you want a higher % of fat loss, keep your deficit in check. The reason for 50-75% is exercise calorie burns are estimates. Some estimates are easier than others.2 -
Mfp is designed for you to eat back those calories. Your goal already includes the deficit. If you exercise that increases the deficit and too large of a deficit isn't healthy. So if you got your goal from mfp then you should eat them back and still lose weight. If you used a TDEE calculator to get your goal then do not eat back exercise calories. Sometimes the exercise calories in mfp can be overestimated, so a good rule of thumb is to start by eating back half of the exercise calories and then after about 4 weeks reevaluate. If you are losing faster than expected you can eat back even more of the exercise calories. If you are losing slower than expected then eat back less.1
-
deethinner wrote: »My daily calorie range to lose weight is 1200 but when I put in my exercises (which I do 6 days a week) it adds more calories. So in order to lose weight do I still eat those calories or leave them be.
Eat them, i always find that exercise calories taste the best12 -
I am set to 1200, try very hard to eat closer to 1000 and hardly ever eat my exercise calories back (unless I'm exercising to purposefully be able to eat more that day). If you feel okay and aren't starving with sticking to our 1200, it's up to you1
-
MotherOfSharpei wrote: »I am set to 1200, try very hard to eat closer to 1000 and hardly ever eat my exercise calories back (unless I'm exercising to purposefully be able to eat more that day). If you feel okay and aren't starving with sticking to our 1200, it's up to you
This is not good advice. Unless you are 4'11" you should not be trying to eat 1000 calories per day and exercise. IMO it is more important for people at the minimum (which is 1200 for women and 1500 for men) to eat back exercise calories. I realize that exercise calories can be overestimated so I don't think that just eating back a portion is bad. But you should definitely eat some back and reevaluate after a few weeks to see if you need to eat more back. You should be netting 1200 calories. If you eat 1000 calories and burn 200 calories exercising then you are netting 800 calories a day and that is not healthy.3 -
MotherOfSharpei wrote: »I am set to 1200, try very hard to eat closer to 1000 and hardly ever eat my exercise calories back (unless I'm exercising to purposefully be able to eat more that day). If you feel okay and aren't starving with sticking to our 1200, it's up to you
Um.....no
#1. That's now how the "tool" is designed. The "tool" being My Fitness Pal (MFP)......the site you signed up for.
#2. 1200 net* is a DEFAULT minimum. Unless you are elderly or very petite 1200 is probably too few calories for you already. Most women get "assigned" 1200 when they have overly aggressive weight loss goals.
Why does MFP give you calories back? When we lose weight we lose fat + plus existing lean muscle mass. A moderate deficit helps your body support existing lean muscle mass better. Google skinny-fat....only the scale looks good.
*NET means you eat @ the goal MFP gave you + exercise calories (a reasonable approximation).3 -
deethinner wrote: »My daily calorie range to lose weight is 1200 but when I put in my exercises (which I do 6 days a week) it adds more calories. So in order to lose weight do I still eat those calories or leave them be.
MFP gives you a calorie target without exercise...when you exercise, you are doing additional activity...additional activity would thus mean your maintenance calories would go up...so you could eat more and still lose at the desired rate...it's really simple math.
If I maintain weight without exercise eating 2500 calories, I could lose 1 Lb per week eating 2,000 calories. If I burn 500 calories daily in exercise, my maintenance calories jump to 3000...so obviously I could lose the same 1 Lb per week eating 2500 calories...3rd grade math.1 -
MotherOfSharpei wrote: »I am set to 1200, try very hard to eat closer to 1000 and hardly ever eat my exercise calories back (unless I'm exercising to purposefully be able to eat more that day). If you feel okay and aren't starving with sticking to our 1200, it's up to you
Why so little?
Why do people expect long term or permanent success by starving themselves.
1 -
MommyMeggo wrote: »MotherOfSharpei wrote: »I am set to 1200, try very hard to eat closer to 1000 and hardly ever eat my exercise calories back (unless I'm exercising to purposefully be able to eat more that day). If you feel okay and aren't starving with sticking to our 1200, it's up to you
Why so little?
Why do people expect long term or permanent success by starving themselves.
I of course have no way of knowing if this is true for the person you quoted, but some people, especially women, feel the need to punish themselves for having gotten overweight in the first place, and feel like dieting should be punitive.
I, on the other hand, believe in a moderate calorie deficit and only being hungry right before meals.5 -
kshama2001 wrote: »MommyMeggo wrote: »MotherOfSharpei wrote: »I am set to 1200, try very hard to eat closer to 1000 and hardly ever eat my exercise calories back (unless I'm exercising to purposefully be able to eat more that day). If you feel okay and aren't starving with sticking to our 1200, it's up to you
Why so little?
Why do people expect long term or permanent success by starving themselves.
I of course have no way of knowing if this is true for the person you quoted, but some people, especially women, feel the need to punish themselves for having gotten overweight in the first place, and feel like dieting should be punitive.
I, on the other hand, believe in a moderate calorie deficit and only being hungry right before meals.
Interestingly enough, I know a number of women who've never even heard of MFP who think 1200 is what they HAVE to eat to lose weight...I know even more who think that's their maintenance. I will seriously never understand women.1 -
Exercise calories got me a venti java chip frappucino today.
So yeah, I'm obviously on the "eat them back" side of the fence.7 -
thanks everyone. Good infor from all.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »MommyMeggo wrote: »MotherOfSharpei wrote: »I am set to 1200, try very hard to eat closer to 1000 and hardly ever eat my exercise calories back (unless I'm exercising to purposefully be able to eat more that day). If you feel okay and aren't starving with sticking to our 1200, it's up to you
Why so little?
Why do people expect long term or permanent success by starving themselves.
I of course have no way of knowing if this is true for the person you quoted, but some people, especially women, feel the need to punish themselves for having gotten overweight in the first place, and feel like dieting should be punitive.
I, on the other hand, believe in a moderate calorie deficit and only being hungry right before meals.
I was asking the poster why she gets 1200 from MFP but tries so hard to stay around 1000.
I understand the psychological crap we put ourselves through. But it's simple math and science. And forum discussions and Q&A and they still want to eat 1200 calories or less and think they can sustain it. So much time and effort is put into obsessing over how little they have to eat vs reality. Not so much for the Non MFPers who don't know better but for those who are, who ask, and still eat as little as possible with a positive outlook for their future selves. *shrug*0 -
I'm also set at 1200....but often eat 1400ish (as the 1200 is on the aggressive side of the spectrum) I always exercise, sometimes as little as 200cal worth, sometimes as much as 1000ca.
I tend to eat back about 50% of those exercise calories.2 -
MommyMeggo wrote: »MotherOfSharpei wrote: »I am set to 1200, try very hard to eat closer to 1000 and hardly ever eat my exercise calories back (unless I'm exercising to purposefully be able to eat more that day). If you feel okay and aren't starving with sticking to our 1200, it's up to you
Why so little?
Why do people expect long term or permanent success by starving themselves.
Maybe she's short. 1200 is only a pound per week for me? Why do people jump to conclusions?0 -
MommyMeggo wrote: »MotherOfSharpei wrote: »I am set to 1200, try very hard to eat closer to 1000 and hardly ever eat my exercise calories back (unless I'm exercising to purposefully be able to eat more that day). If you feel okay and aren't starving with sticking to our 1200, it's up to you
Why so little?
Why do people expect long term or permanent success by starving themselves.
Maybe she's short. 1200 is only a pound per week for me? Why do people jump to conclusions?
Because OP is trying hard to eat 200 calories *less* than 1,200 and is further increasing her deficit by not eating exercise calories? Even if you're small, regularly netting less than 1,00 (which is what OP is describing) isn't likely to be a good strategy.
1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »MommyMeggo wrote: »MotherOfSharpei wrote: »I am set to 1200, try very hard to eat closer to 1000 and hardly ever eat my exercise calories back (unless I'm exercising to purposefully be able to eat more that day). If you feel okay and aren't starving with sticking to our 1200, it's up to you
Why so little?
Why do people expect long term or permanent success by starving themselves.
Maybe she's short. 1200 is only a pound per week for me? Why do people jump to conclusions?
Because OP is trying hard to eat 200 calories *less* than 1,200 and is further increasing her deficit by not eating exercise calories? Even if you're small, regularly netting less than 1,00 (which is what OP is describing) isn't likely to be a good strategy.
Thank you. Posts have been erased and that's no longer in the op.
* oh wait. That was a commenter who is trying to stay at 1000, not the op. Sorry for my confusion.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »MommyMeggo wrote: »MotherOfSharpei wrote: »I am set to 1200, try very hard to eat closer to 1000 and hardly ever eat my exercise calories back (unless I'm exercising to purposefully be able to eat more that day). If you feel okay and aren't starving with sticking to our 1200, it's up to you
Why so little?
Why do people expect long term or permanent success by starving themselves.
I of course have no way of knowing if this is true for the person you quoted, but some people, especially women, feel the need to punish themselves for having gotten overweight in the first place, and feel like dieting should be punitive.
I, on the other hand, believe in a moderate calorie deficit and only being hungry right before meals.
I have another theory...they want to be thin fast.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »MommyMeggo wrote: »MotherOfSharpei wrote: »I am set to 1200, try very hard to eat closer to 1000 and hardly ever eat my exercise calories back (unless I'm exercising to purposefully be able to eat more that day). If you feel okay and aren't starving with sticking to our 1200, it's up to you
Why so little?
Why do people expect long term or permanent success by starving themselves.
I of course have no way of knowing if this is true for the person you quoted, but some people, especially women, feel the need to punish themselves for having gotten overweight in the first place, and feel like dieting should be punitive.
I, on the other hand, believe in a moderate calorie deficit and only being hungry right before meals.
I have another theory...they want to be thin fast.
Let's face it, most people want to be thin fast. But that doesn't make fast weight loss healthy or lasting. 1,000 gross calories for an active young person isn't healthy. That's the conclusion I jumped to.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »MommyMeggo wrote: »MotherOfSharpei wrote: »I am set to 1200, try very hard to eat closer to 1000 and hardly ever eat my exercise calories back (unless I'm exercising to purposefully be able to eat more that day). If you feel okay and aren't starving with sticking to our 1200, it's up to you
Why so little?
Why do people expect long term or permanent success by starving themselves.
I of course have no way of knowing if this is true for the person you quoted, but some people, especially women, feel the need to punish themselves for having gotten overweight in the first place, and feel like dieting should be punitive.
I, on the other hand, believe in a moderate calorie deficit and only being hungry right before meals.
I have another theory...they want to be thin fast.
Let's face it, most people want to be thin fast. But that doesn't make fast weight loss healthy or lasting. 1,000 gross calories for an active young person isn't healthy. That's the conclusion I jumped to.
No, it's not wise or healthy, I agree...I just think that saying that we are "punishing" ourselves is a little over-reaching.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »MommyMeggo wrote: »MotherOfSharpei wrote: »I am set to 1200, try very hard to eat closer to 1000 and hardly ever eat my exercise calories back (unless I'm exercising to purposefully be able to eat more that day). If you feel okay and aren't starving with sticking to our 1200, it's up to you
Why so little?
Why do people expect long term or permanent success by starving themselves.
Maybe she's short. 1200 is only a pound per week for me? Why do people jump to conclusions?
Because OP is trying hard to eat 200 calories *less* than 1,200 and is further increasing her deficit by not eating exercise calories? Even if you're small, regularly netting less than 1,00 (which is what OP is describing) isn't likely to be a good strategy.
Thank you. Posts have been erased and that's no longer in the op.
* oh wait. That was a commenter who is trying to stay at 1000, not the op. Sorry for my confusion.
You're absolutely right, it wasn't OP. Sorry for my mistake.0 -
My daily goal is set to 1200. Up until yesterday, I thought that meant I couldn't eat more than 1200 and I needed to make my own deficit. While I did lose 8.5 lbs in 30 something days, I stalled this whole week and the scale hasn't moved (in either direction) One of my friends helped me see what I was doing wrong and today I am making a very good effort to eat more, and better. I really wish I would have found this before and I probably should have read everything posted before starting this so hardcore.0
-
I eat exercise calories back.
Using myself as an example.
Put into MFP 6' male 37 170 pounds lightly active. Put in want to lose 1.5 pounds per week. MFP sets my goal to 1680 calories per day. Go for walks, lift some weights, do some cardio and on average I burn an extra 700 calories a day so I'd say I eat more like 2400 calories per day (on average not every single day) because I eat that back. Have been tracking since July 15th and have lost 12 pounds so about 1.3 pounds per week. I'm really aiming for more like 1 pound per week in reality so if anything I could eat more.
If I didn't eat my exercise calories back I'd either be horribly exhausted and in a crap mood all the time or I'd have to give up exercising neither of which I want to do nor see a point in. Way I'm doing it now I'm full, I'm satisfied and I'm losing weight about as quickly as I feel is safe.1 -
MommyMeggo wrote: »MotherOfSharpei wrote: »I am set to 1200, try very hard to eat closer to 1000 and hardly ever eat my exercise calories back (unless I'm exercising to purposefully be able to eat more that day). If you feel okay and aren't starving with sticking to our 1200, it's up to you
Why so little?
Why do people expect long term or permanent success by starving themselves.
Maybe she's short. 1200 is only a pound per week for me? Why do people jump to conclusions?
Stats are semi- irrelevant. She was aiming to eat less than the bare minimum MFP will go *and set for her. I wanted to know why so little.
Not really jumping to anything regarding my rhetorical question about "people". Many, many posters blatantly refuse to accept that they dont have to eat only the bare minimum and that MFP and its long time users must be wrong when we say, eat more.0 -
MommyMeggo wrote: »MommyMeggo wrote: »MotherOfSharpei wrote: »I am set to 1200, try very hard to eat closer to 1000 and hardly ever eat my exercise calories back (unless I'm exercising to purposefully be able to eat more that day). If you feel okay and aren't starving with sticking to our 1200, it's up to you
Why so little?
Why do people expect long term or permanent success by starving themselves.
Maybe she's short. 1200 is only a pound per week for me? Why do people jump to conclusions?
Stats are semi- irrelevant. She was aiming to eat less than the bare minimum MFP will go *and set for her. I wanted to know why so little.
Not really jumping to anything regarding my rhetorical question about "people". Many, many posters blatantly refuse to accept that they dont have to eat only the bare minimum and that MFP and its long time users must be wrong when we say, eat more.
Yes I'm sorry. I made a mistake and thought you were talking about the op. Sorry.0 -
If you eat too much of your deficit you're simply "maintaining"0
-
MommyMeggo wrote: »MommyMeggo wrote: »MotherOfSharpei wrote: »I am set to 1200, try very hard to eat closer to 1000 and hardly ever eat my exercise calories back (unless I'm exercising to purposefully be able to eat more that day). If you feel okay and aren't starving with sticking to our 1200, it's up to you
Why so little?
Why do people expect long term or permanent success by starving themselves.
Maybe she's short. 1200 is only a pound per week for me? Why do people jump to conclusions?
Stats are semi- irrelevant. She was aiming to eat less than the bare minimum MFP will go *and set for her. I wanted to know why so little.
Not really jumping to anything regarding my rhetorical question about "people". Many, many posters blatantly refuse to accept that they dont have to eat only the bare minimum and that MFP and its long time users must be wrong when we say, eat more.
Yes I'm sorry. I made a mistake and thought you were talking about the op. Sorry.
Ah- yea quoting quotes gets quirky. =P1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »MommyMeggo wrote: »MotherOfSharpei wrote: »I am set to 1200, try very hard to eat closer to 1000 and hardly ever eat my exercise calories back (unless I'm exercising to purposefully be able to eat more that day). If you feel okay and aren't starving with sticking to our 1200, it's up to you
Why so little?
Why do people expect long term or permanent success by starving themselves.
I of course have no way of knowing if this is true for the person you quoted, but some people, especially women, feel the need to punish themselves for having gotten overweight in the first place, and feel like dieting should be punitive.
I, on the other hand, believe in a moderate calorie deficit and only being hungry right before meals.
I have another theory...they want to be thin fast.
Let's face it, most people want to be thin fast. But that doesn't make fast weight loss healthy or lasting. 1,000 gross calories for an active young person isn't healthy. That's the conclusion I jumped to.
No, it's not wise or healthy, I agree...I just think that saying that we are "punishing" ourselves is a little over-reaching.
You've never seen posts here by people who seem to have a punitive mindset? I sure have.
Please note I said "some people" so was clearly not referring to the entire population of those "starving themselves", for which I proposed an answer to the question of why do that.0 -
Seems to me, the entire point of exercising is to burn calories, so you can lose weight, unless you want to maintain your weight, or add weight, you are defeating the whole purpose of exercising by eating them back.
Since I started this program, I've lost over 35 pounds by keeping my calorie intake under/at my recommended goal to lose weight, whether I exercise or not. In fact, I don't even pay attention to how many calories I've "earned" by exercising other than as a personal goal.
When I decided to get in shape, I started out exercising for about 30 - 45 minutes a day of cardio. Now I'm up to 60 minutes a day of cardio, plus an additional 60 to 90 minutes of strength training a day, 5 days a week.
But as for calories, those have remained the same, but if I had been "eating back" the calories I burned by exercising, I would never have lost all that weight to begin with.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions