Do you believe in "Calorie Math"?

michael_hatten

I keep track of my eating and exercise on MFP to have a general idea how many calories I eat and how much exercise I do but I have to be honest. I don't believe the calorie numbers are very accurate -- especially for exercise calories. I also take the idea that you can work calories off in the gym with a great grain of salt. For sure, working out helps you maintain your weight but I doubt that you can work off 3500 excess calories and thereby lose exactly one pound. And I especially doubt that you can work out an exact one-for-one exchange of a gym exercise for some food indulgence.

Trackers are valuable. They can keep you motivated and perhaps give you a way to compare one workout to another as long as they are on the same machine using the same calorie measurement device. But I think the idea that they are anything more than rough measures is just nuts.

Machka9

Yes, it is all about CI <CO.

If you want to lose weight, you need to eat less than you're burning.

If you enter your information into MFP, and select sedentary as your activity level, MFP will give you a number of calories to consume which includes a deficit appropriate for the amount of weight you've selected to lose each week (i.e. 1 lb/week)

Any exercise you do will increase the deficit.

Now, the number of calories burned during exercise is indeed an estimate, and many calorie counters over estimate that amount. That is why the recommendation is to log your exercise, but then to eat approx. half of your exercise calories back.

I also tend to choose the "slow/light" option even if I feel like I walked or cycled fast and put in a really good effort. And I'll round my time down a little bit.

Works for me!

michael_hatten

I agree that eat less, exercise more works. I've lost 35 pounds this year following that not very complex formula. What I'm pushing back on is obsessing on the numbers. They aren't that accurate and it can make you nuts.

law102189

I have tried many diets over the years looking for an easy magic bullet. I lost weight, but gained it back as soon as I started to eat normally. I finally gave into the reality that the magic bullet is CI/CO. This is not a new theory, but the availability of apps like MFP makes it so much easier to do now. I agree with other posts that exercise calories may not be 100% accurate, even with my Vivosmart HR, so I try not to eat back all of my exercise calories. There must be truth to it; I've lost 50 since January and don't even feel deprived or like I've been dieting, probably because I'm not. I've just changed my relationship with food and exercise.

Machka9

michael_hatten wrote: »

I agree that eat less, exercise more works. I've lost 35 pounds this year following that not very complex formula. What I'm pushing back on is obsessing on the numbers. They aren't that accurate and it can make you nuts.

1) I have lost 55 lbs this time using CI<CO
2) Any time over the past 30 years that I've wanted to lose a little bit of weight, I've used CI<CO ... because it works.
3) I like numbers and data. It's what I do. I've been logging my cycling since April 29, 1990. I've been logging my food on and off since about 1984.

While I like to be reasonably accurate with things like distance cycled, I know, and have known since about 1984, that calories are hard to determine accurately ... and really, they don't need to be determined absolutely accurately. For weight loss, as long as you're reasonably sure that the amount you're consuming is less than the amount you're burning, you're good. And you know you've got it right because you will lose weight.

Helloitsdan

In my opinion it has its uses and should be viewed as a tool.
With that said, my clients don't count calories to get to their goals.

middlehaitch

MFP gives one a tool to collect data.
One starts with the numbers MFP, other online calculators, and step/ movement/ HRM devices one chooses to use and then extracts ones personal data from the results one receives.

I don't think any average calculation can give an individual exact results, but the more accurate information one can extrapolate from an imperfect system, the more one can succeed.

I didn't take the numbers with a grain of salt, I tracked them and worked out the calories I personally need when a book worm, when doing 60min cardio, and when lifting weights.
I can easily adjust my intake over the week to make sure I am at least adequately fueled for my activity level.

It takes a bit of work at the beginning, but after 6 years of maintaining within a 5 lbs range, I have found it successful and non intrusive on my daily life.

As a non-numbers person, I have found knowing my own numbers, and working with them, works.

Cheers, h.

trigden1991

The numbers may not be accurate but if you are consistent then the inaccuracies of intake and expenditure are equaled out over time. CICO is the only maths that is certain.

deannaaaaaaaaa

Yes. Overestimate calories in, underestimate calories out. Easy peasy.

psuLemon

Absolutely, I am a firm believer in CICO. But there are a few things to consider

1. Exercise calories can be over estimates
2. Statistically, calories in tends to be under estimated, even with a food scale and even with trained professionals
3. And people fail to use a feedback system; meaning, you should reevaluate your calorie position based on actual results after 4-6 weeks. This is how I know, my estimated average maintenance is around 3k.

The biggest problems on MFP are, 1. inaccurately tracking calories (no food scales and bad entries), 2. inconsistent in their tracking (not logging daily or completely) and 3. putting too much trust in online calculators which can't take into consideration real life variables.

NorthCascades

michael_hatten wrote: »

For sure, working out helps you maintain your weight but I doubt that you can work off 3500 excess calories and thereby lose exactly one pound.

Is it the end of the world if you burn 3,501 calories instead?

FernRunner

Yes. I'm a believer. It's not easy to be exact, but the process is not a mystery. I also err on the side of caution and overestimate my calories in, underestimate my calories burned.
My attention and consistency are my biggest assets when losing weight. If I get out of the habit of logging, of truly paying attention, THAT'S when I have issues.

MeanderingMammal

michael_hatten wrote: »

I agree that eat less, exercise more works. I've lost 35 pounds this year following that not very complex formula. What I'm pushing back on is obsessing on the numbers. They aren't that accurate and it can make you nuts.

Expending more calories than one consumes leads to an energy deficit. It really is that simple, basic physics.

I agree with your point about obsessing on the numbers. The range of people who seem to think that instrumentation used inappropriately can give them meaningful data is immense, including those who should know better.

The main thing is looking at results on an enduring basis, testing and adjusting as required.

I would add that I'm not a strong advocate of exercise as a method of calorie management. Train for fitness and to meet performance objectives, and eat to a calorie goal. Keep the two discrete.

sijomial

Yes I believe in the maths but there's no need for absolute accuracy at all - a trend over time is all you need.

I used the estimates from a budget Polar FT7 HRM for my cardio when I was losing weight and those estimates were probably out by 20%, didn't stop me losing weight.
I also used food scales sparingly and sporadically - again didn't stop me losing weight.
I'm now a long term maintainer and don't bother logging food at all.

None of that takes away from the "Calorie Math".
Consistency and the common sense to make adjustments based on results is far more important than agonising over accuracy.

Need2Exerc1se

michael_hatten wrote: »

Trackers are valuable. They can keep you motivated and perhaps give you a way to compare one workout to another as long as they are on the same machine using the same calorie measurement device. But I think the idea that they are anything more than rough measures is just nuts.

I agree with this. Sure the math works but all trackers are based on averages and will likely be 100% accurate for very few people. We don't all absorb the same number of calories for same foods, and we don't all burn the same calories even if we are the same size.

But, trackers and calculators are a decent starting point. You just have to apply common sense and adjust as needed.

michael_hatten

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

I would add that I'm not a strong advocate of exercise as a method of calorie management. Train for fitness and to meet performance objectives, and eat to a calorie goal. Keep the two discrete.

Ultimately that became my philosophy, too.

1. Diet for your arteries
2. Do cardio for the heart
3. Do stretches for mobility
4. Do resistance training for functional strength

CDC provides pretty good guidance on how much to do. The weight kind of takes care of itself.

rsclause

The calorie math gave me a baseline for deficit. That said I think much of the exercise and food database calorie estimates are off. At best many are wild guesses and it you have been at this awhile you can spot the ones that are way off. I never choose the least calorie estimate for the food I am eating and never pick the highest calorie burn for the exercise I am doing. Seems to work for me.

WinoGelato

It is impossible to pinpoint, to a single 4 digit number, every single day, exactly how many calories an individual takes in as well as how many calories they are burning.

The good news is that you don't have to pinpoint, to a single 4 digit number, every single day, exactly how many calories an individual takes in and how many they burn. In order to be successful with whatever your weight goals are, it is critical to know how the fundamental energy balance works (CICO), and determine a reasonably accurate estimate for yourself within a certain acceptable range using a variety of tools at your disposal. These tools may be a food scale to help with CI accuracy, it may be a HRM to help with CO accuracy, it may be a TDEE calculator like Scooby's site provides, it may be just tracking individual results over a period of time and doing some basic math.

None of that invalidates the "Calorie Math" as that applies whether you choose to measure and track it or not.

BeeerRunner

Machka9 wrote: »

Yes, it is all about CI <CO.

If you want to lose weight, you need to eat less than you're burning.

If you enter your information into MFP, and select sedentary as your activity level, MFP will give you a number of calories to consume which includes a deficit appropriate for the amount of weight you've selected to lose each week (i.e. 1 lb/week)

Any exercise you do will increase the deficit.

Now, the number of calories burned during exercise is indeed an estimate, and many calorie counters over estimate that amount. That is why the recommendation is to log your exercise, but then to eat approx. half of your exercise calories back.

I also tend to choose the "slow/light" option even if I feel like I walked or cycled fast and put in a really good effort. And I'll round my time down a little bit.

Works for me!

This!!

It worked for me! I lost 42 pounds and have been maintaining it for 7 months now. Yes, calories burned are an estimate so just make sure they are conservative.

cqbkaju

Do I "believe" in math? Yes, I have a degree in Electrical Engineering.
Do I know that that the calories I take in and the calories I burn have and effect on my weight and fitness? Yes.

CI<CO to lose, CI>CO to gain.

If someone does not want to "believe" that then it makes me think:

1. They don't understand how math works.
2. They are hoping to eat as much of X as desired and never gain weight.
3. They are hoping for a magic pill that will do the work for them without exercise.

It is almost impossible for the average person to out-train a bad diet so CI definitely matters.

"Calorie Math" matters. What does not matter is if someone wants to "believe" in it or not.

Estimate your intake on the high side and under-estimate your calories burned if you want, but it matters.

No, there is currently no way to get the absolute numbers needed to gain, lose, maintain, whatever but that is not the point.
This is long-term averages, not day-to-day changes.

stealthq

Yes, our estimations of CI are just that, though you can get pretty darn good at it with the right measuring techniques.

Yes, our estimations of CO are just that, although with respect to exercise and calorie expenditure there are certain exercises that you can estimate with much better reliability than others - often manually with a formula as the activity trackers may calculate gross calories rather then net, and/or rely on HR which is not a good estimate of actual work done, and/or rely on # of steps or distance or speed that may not be accurate.

In addition, the weight we lose is generally not 100% fat, so the notion that it is accurate to say you 'burn 3500 cals and lose exactly 1lb' is flawed from the get-go. Plus, the notion that 3500 cals == 1 lb of fat is, once again, an estimate.

But, still, "calorie math" in the sense of "get CI < CO and you will lose fat over time" works. "Calorie math" in the sense of "My estimated TDEE is 1700 and my estimated CI is 1200 so I will lose exactly 1lb of fat every week" does not work as an absolute statement.

Hornsby

The GIANT error in your OP is that you are using the term "exact" when it can not be applied to something that is solely based on estimates.

The key is consistency. Consistently using the same estimates from the same places is as close to "exact" as it's gonna get.

cwolfman13

michael_hatten wrote: »

I keep track of my eating and exercise on MFP to have a general idea how many calories I eat and how much exercise I do but I have to be honest. I don't believe the calorie numbers are very accurate -- especially for exercise calories. I also take the idea that you can work calories off in the gym with a great grain of salt. For sure, working out helps you maintain your weight but I doubt that you can work off 3500 excess calories and thereby lose exactly one pound. And I especially doubt that you can work out an exact one-for-one exchange of a gym exercise for some food indulgence.

Trackers are valuable. They can keep you motivated and perhaps give you a way to compare one workout to another as long as they are on the same machine using the same calorie measurement device. But I think the idea that they are anything more than rough measures is just nuts.

1. Calorie burns are estimates...there are also numerous other sources to determine calorie burn...it's easy enough to get a reasonably good estimate.

2. You don't need to work off 3,500 calories to lose 1 Lb...you just need a deficit of 3,500 calories...MFP builds that into your diet without any exercise whatsoever.

3. Every single one of these calculators is an estimate and provide for a reasonably good starting point...they aren't gospel...nobody needs exactly XXXX calories...you have to make adjustments as per your actual results.

4. Nothing is exact...it's all estimates...you don't have to workout an exact one for one...you have to work it out to be good enough.

I lost 40 Lbs pretty easily following MFP's methodology and so have countless others...you need to get over "exacts" and other absolutes...

rosebarnalice

I kept a detailed spreadsheet of my MFP CI-CO for about 9 months, with the express purpose of determining the margin of error between its predictions of my weight loss and my actual weight loss.

I think the calorie counts are, for the most part, accurate. I concluded, though, that MFP overestimated my calorie burn during exercise, so through several weeks of experimentation, I now log my regular 73-minute swim at what I consider to be moderate effort into MFP as a 60-minute swim at "light" effort.

Once I made that correction in my logging, my spreadsheet math of actual weight lost and MFP's predicted weight loss evened to less than a 2% difference.

I don't keep the spreadsheet anymore, but my nine-month experiment has made me more confident in MFP's numbers.

Sued0nim

The underlying math yes
The concept of balancing estimates over time yes
Data geek so I like seeing the numbers

But do you need to be consciously aware of the numbers? no

As the poster upthread who increased his calories out while maintaining calories in demonstrates it works even if you refuse to believe it does

So even though he doesn't agree conceptually and likes to wrap it up in "calories don't matter" he still benefitted from the underlying maths

Beauty of maths isn't it? It works whether you believe is not