Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Exercise calories - do I eat these? A video explanation.

1235

Replies

  • psuLemonpsuLemon Posts: 34,970Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator Posts: 34,970Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator
    mummy_h wrote: »
    malibu927 wrote: »
    bad_dog_ny wrote: »
    I am afraid I might be slowing up my metabolism. MSP says I can eat 1840 calories per day to lose my target of 2 pounds a week. I have been going to the gym everyday, resistance and treadmill every other day, and then another form of cardio on the alternate days. Each day I do 45 minutes of cardio, including treadmill days, getting my heart rate up to Target of 138 BPM for at least half an hour. I didn't lose any weight this week, but I'm wondering if I could have gained muscle. I rarely even make my 1840 calories. Usually I clock in somewhere around 1500 to 1600 calories and I'm not hungry. I have lost 50 pounds and still need to lose about another 100. I feel better than I have in a very long time. I used to be in great shape. Several years ago I developed diabetes and a few months ago it became difficult to control my blood sugar even with high amounts of insulin. I eventually went on a carb-free diet and it took almost a month of that to get my blood glucose under control, and that was taking 120 units of basal insulin a day. Now in just a few weeks back at the gym I am down to 35 units a day, with great sugar control. I do not eat my exercise calories, and I was wondering if at 1500 calories a day I am sabotaging my metabolism. I could probably make it to the 1800 a day, but with the types of Foods I am now choosing I seem to get plenty of volume with a lot fewer calories. This week could just be an odd thing, too much salt and retained a little bit of water, or whatever. I would really like to stay at 2 pounds loss a week, because even then this is going to take me another year. I had read somewhere not to eat fewer than 900-1200 calories or your metabolism would go into starvation mode. But everybody is different. 1500 sounds like a decent diet plan. Even 1800 at my size. Should I be trying to force myself to consume all my calories even if I'm not hungry? Should I really be eating the exercise calories, or should I let them be extra weight loss? My progress at the gym has also been surprisingly fast. At first I couldn't even maintain 3 miles an hour on a 2 incline, and I'm already doing 3.5 at an 8 incline to keep my heart rate in the right Zone. I don't want to go any faster because then I begin to jog and I don't think that would be good for my knees. My wife is amazed that I can do 45 minutes on the elliptical, also maintaining my target heart rate. Could all this extra exercise and extra earned calories actually be sabotaging my metabolism instead of making it higher?

    First, starvation mode doesn't exist. Second, weight loss is not linear. It could be from excess sodium, but it's definitely not muscle. Third, 1500 is the lowest a male should eat. Ideally you should be eating to your goal after exercise. You want to fuel your body, and the video in the first post explains why. If you're having problems meeting your goal, add in some calorie dense items (nuts, nut butters, dairy, cooking oils, even a little treat if you have to).

    Why do you say its not muscle?

    Because muscle its hard to develop and under optimal conditions males can gain about 1/2 lb per week. And when you are on a vlcd diet, it's even more difficult to even sustain your muscle.
  • kimny72kimny72 Posts: 13,740Member Member Posts: 13,740Member Member
    Makes little sense. If mfp isn't taking k to consideration my activity, then WHY ask if I'm sedentary, or walk, or work out, ....
    That's already figured in , unless I input 'lard butt' for activity, then go work out contrary to usual.
    If I already said I'm active, why would I 'eat back'? Why would it "give" me more calories for being active in general, then ADD AGAIN when I work out?

    The MFP activity level is your normal day to day activity, not purposeful exercise.

    So if you sit at a desk all week and on the couch all weekend, but you go to the gym 4 times a werk, you choose sedentary and then log your exercise 4 times a week.

    If you're a construction worker who chases around your toddler all weekend, you choose active.

    MFP works differently than a TDEE calculator, which includes your exercise and spreads those calories over the week.
  • kami3006kami3006 Posts: 4,993Member, Greeter, Premium Member Posts: 4,993Member, Greeter, Premium Member
    Makes little sense. If mfp isn't taking k to consideration my activity, then WHY ask if I'm sedentary, or walk, or work out, ....
    That's already figured in , unless I input 'lard butt' for activity, then go work out contrary to usual.
    If I already said I'm active, why would I 'eat back'? Why would it "give" me more calories for being active in general, then ADD AGAIN when I work out?

    It takes into consideration your daily activity outside of intentional exercise. Then, you add in exercise as you do it.

    When it asks about exercise during set up, it’s just asking you for an amount you’re aiming for as a personal log. It has no bearing on your numbers.
  • mummy_hmummy_h Posts: 99Member Member Posts: 99Member Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mummy_h wrote: »
    malibu927 wrote: »
    bad_dog_ny wrote: »
    I am afraid I might be slowing up my metabolism. MSP says I can eat 1840 calories per day to lose my target of 2 pounds a week. I have been going to the gym everyday, resistance and treadmill every other day, and then another form of cardio on the alternate days. Each day I do 45 minutes of cardio, including treadmill days, getting my heart rate up to Target of 138 BPM for at least half an hour. I didn't lose any weight this week, but I'm wondering if I could have gained muscle. I rarely even make my 1840 calories. Usually I clock in somewhere around 1500 to 1600 calories and I'm not hungry. I have lost 50 pounds and still need to lose about another 100. I feel better than I have in a very long time. I used to be in great shape. Several years ago I developed diabetes and a few months ago it became difficult to control my blood sugar even with high amounts of insulin. I eventually went on a carb-free diet and it took almost a month of that to get my blood glucose under control, and that was taking 120 units of basal insulin a day. Now in just a few weeks back at the gym I am down to 35 units a day, with great sugar control. I do not eat my exercise calories, and I was wondering if at 1500 calories a day I am sabotaging my metabolism. I could probably make it to the 1800 a day, but with the types of Foods I am now choosing I seem to get plenty of volume with a lot fewer calories. This week could just be an odd thing, too much salt and retained a little bit of water, or whatever. I would really like to stay at 2 pounds loss a week, because even then this is going to take me another year. I had read somewhere not to eat fewer than 900-1200 calories or your metabolism would go into starvation mode. But everybody is different. 1500 sounds like a decent diet plan. Even 1800 at my size. Should I be trying to force myself to consume all my calories even if I'm not hungry? Should I really be eating the exercise calories, or should I let them be extra weight loss? My progress at the gym has also been surprisingly fast. At first I couldn't even maintain 3 miles an hour on a 2 incline, and I'm already doing 3.5 at an 8 incline to keep my heart rate in the right Zone. I don't want to go any faster because then I begin to jog and I don't think that would be good for my knees. My wife is amazed that I can do 45 minutes on the elliptical, also maintaining my target heart rate. Could all this extra exercise and extra earned calories actually be sabotaging my metabolism instead of making it higher?

    First, starvation mode doesn't exist. Second, weight loss is not linear. It could be from excess sodium, but it's definitely not muscle. Third, 1500 is the lowest a male should eat. Ideally you should be eating to your goal after exercise. You want to fuel your body, and the video in the first post explains why. If you're having problems meeting your goal, add in some calorie dense items (nuts, nut butters, dairy, cooking oils, even a little treat if you have to).

    Why do you say its not muscle?

    Because muscle its hard to develop and under optimal conditions males can gain about 1/2 lb per week. And when you are on a vlcd diet, it's even more difficult to even sustain your muscle.

    Ok thank you, i was losing weight untill I started swimming a few weeks ago. And now ive put it on. Im was hoping it was muscle 😥
  • jls1leather9497jls1leather9497 Posts: 90Member Member Posts: 90Member Member
    kimny72 wrote: »

    So if you sit at a desk all week and on the couch all weekend, but you go to the gym 4 times a werk, you choose sedentary and then log your exercise 4 times a week.
    .

    Well, that's largely what I did, though I may have underestimated just a tad. I said 'sitter's or whatever word they used, but I do move around a bit. I may do a bit more than 'sit', but figured it was a ballpark
  • psuLemonpsuLemon Posts: 34,970Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator Posts: 34,970Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator
    mummy_h wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mummy_h wrote: »
    malibu927 wrote: »
    bad_dog_ny wrote: »
    I am afraid I might be slowing up my metabolism. MSP says I can eat 1840 calories per day to lose my target of 2 pounds a week. I have been going to the gym everyday, resistance and treadmill every other day, and then another form of cardio on the alternate days. Each day I do 45 minutes of cardio, including treadmill days, getting my heart rate up to Target of 138 BPM for at least half an hour. I didn't lose any weight this week, but I'm wondering if I could have gained muscle. I rarely even make my 1840 calories. Usually I clock in somewhere around 1500 to 1600 calories and I'm not hungry. I have lost 50 pounds and still need to lose about another 100. I feel better than I have in a very long time. I used to be in great shape. Several years ago I developed diabetes and a few months ago it became difficult to control my blood sugar even with high amounts of insulin. I eventually went on a carb-free diet and it took almost a month of that to get my blood glucose under control, and that was taking 120 units of basal insulin a day. Now in just a few weeks back at the gym I am down to 35 units a day, with great sugar control. I do not eat my exercise calories, and I was wondering if at 1500 calories a day I am sabotaging my metabolism. I could probably make it to the 1800 a day, but with the types of Foods I am now choosing I seem to get plenty of volume with a lot fewer calories. This week could just be an odd thing, too much salt and retained a little bit of water, or whatever. I would really like to stay at 2 pounds loss a week, because even then this is going to take me another year. I had read somewhere not to eat fewer than 900-1200 calories or your metabolism would go into starvation mode. But everybody is different. 1500 sounds like a decent diet plan. Even 1800 at my size. Should I be trying to force myself to consume all my calories even if I'm not hungry? Should I really be eating the exercise calories, or should I let them be extra weight loss? My progress at the gym has also been surprisingly fast. At first I couldn't even maintain 3 miles an hour on a 2 incline, and I'm already doing 3.5 at an 8 incline to keep my heart rate in the right Zone. I don't want to go any faster because then I begin to jog and I don't think that would be good for my knees. My wife is amazed that I can do 45 minutes on the elliptical, also maintaining my target heart rate. Could all this extra exercise and extra earned calories actually be sabotaging my metabolism instead of making it higher?

    First, starvation mode doesn't exist. Second, weight loss is not linear. It could be from excess sodium, but it's definitely not muscle. Third, 1500 is the lowest a male should eat. Ideally you should be eating to your goal after exercise. You want to fuel your body, and the video in the first post explains why. If you're having problems meeting your goal, add in some calorie dense items (nuts, nut butters, dairy, cooking oils, even a little treat if you have to).

    Why do you say its not muscle?

    Because muscle its hard to develop and under optimal conditions males can gain about 1/2 lb per week. And when you are on a vlcd diet, it's even more difficult to even sustain your muscle.

    Ok thank you, i was losing weight untill I started swimming a few weeks ago. And now ive put it on. Im was hoping it was muscle 😥

    Its water. Exercise causes microtears. As a result you body stores fluids to repair your muscles.
  • mummy_hmummy_h Posts: 99Member Member Posts: 99Member Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mummy_h wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mummy_h wrote: »
    malibu927 wrote: »
    bad_dog_ny wrote: »
    I am afraid I might be slowing up my metabolism. MSP says I can eat 1840 calories per day to lose my target of 2 pounds a week. I have been going to the gym everyday, resistance and treadmill every other day, and then another form of cardio on the alternate days. Each day I do 45 minutes of cardio, including treadmill days, getting my heart rate up to Target of 138 BPM for at least half an hour. I didn't lose any weight this week, but I'm wondering if I could have gained muscle. I rarely even make my 1840 calories. Usually I clock in somewhere around 1500 to 1600 calories and I'm not hungry. I have lost 50 pounds and still need to lose about another 100. I feel better than I have in a very long time. I used to be in great shape. Several years ago I developed diabetes and a few months ago it became difficult to control my blood sugar even with high amounts of insulin. I eventually went on a carb-free diet and it took almost a month of that to get my blood glucose under control, and that was taking 120 units of basal insulin a day. Now in just a few weeks back at the gym I am down to 35 units a day, with great sugar control. I do not eat my exercise calories, and I was wondering if at 1500 calories a day I am sabotaging my metabolism. I could probably make it to the 1800 a day, but with the types of Foods I am now choosing I seem to get plenty of volume with a lot fewer calories. This week could just be an odd thing, too much salt and retained a little bit of water, or whatever. I would really like to stay at 2 pounds loss a week, because even then this is going to take me another year. I had read somewhere not to eat fewer than 900-1200 calories or your metabolism would go into starvation mode. But everybody is different. 1500 sounds like a decent diet plan. Even 1800 at my size. Should I be trying to force myself to consume all my calories even if I'm not hungry? Should I really be eating the exercise calories, or should I let them be extra weight loss? My progress at the gym has also been surprisingly fast. At first I couldn't even maintain 3 miles an hour on a 2 incline, and I'm already doing 3.5 at an 8 incline to keep my heart rate in the right Zone. I don't want to go any faster because then I begin to jog and I don't think that would be good for my knees. My wife is amazed that I can do 45 minutes on the elliptical, also maintaining my target heart rate. Could all this extra exercise and extra earned calories actually be sabotaging my metabolism instead of making it higher?

    First, starvation mode doesn't exist. Second, weight loss is not linear. It could be from excess sodium, but it's definitely not muscle. Third, 1500 is the lowest a male should eat. Ideally you should be eating to your goal after exercise. You want to fuel your body, and the video in the first post explains why. If you're having problems meeting your goal, add in some calorie dense items (nuts, nut butters, dairy, cooking oils, even a little treat if you have to).

    Why do you say its not muscle?

    Because muscle its hard to develop and under optimal conditions males can gain about 1/2 lb per week. And when you are on a vlcd diet, it's even more difficult to even sustain your muscle.

    Ok thank you, i was losing weight untill I started swimming a few weeks ago. And now ive put it on. Im was hoping it was muscle 😥

    Its water. Exercise causes microtears. As a result you body stores fluids to repair your muscles.

    Oh ok thank you 😁😁
  • psuLemonpsuLemon Posts: 34,970Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator Posts: 34,970Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator
    mummy_h wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mummy_h wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mummy_h wrote: »
    malibu927 wrote: »
    bad_dog_ny wrote: »
    I am afraid I might be slowing up my metabolism. MSP says I can eat 1840 calories per day to lose my target of 2 pounds a week. I have been going to the gym everyday, resistance and treadmill every other day, and then another form of cardio on the alternate days. Each day I do 45 minutes of cardio, including treadmill days, getting my heart rate up to Target of 138 BPM for at least half an hour. I didn't lose any weight this week, but I'm wondering if I could have gained muscle. I rarely even make my 1840 calories. Usually I clock in somewhere around 1500 to 1600 calories and I'm not hungry. I have lost 50 pounds and still need to lose about another 100. I feel better than I have in a very long time. I used to be in great shape. Several years ago I developed diabetes and a few months ago it became difficult to control my blood sugar even with high amounts of insulin. I eventually went on a carb-free diet and it took almost a month of that to get my blood glucose under control, and that was taking 120 units of basal insulin a day. Now in just a few weeks back at the gym I am down to 35 units a day, with great sugar control. I do not eat my exercise calories, and I was wondering if at 1500 calories a day I am sabotaging my metabolism. I could probably make it to the 1800 a day, but with the types of Foods I am now choosing I seem to get plenty of volume with a lot fewer calories. This week could just be an odd thing, too much salt and retained a little bit of water, or whatever. I would really like to stay at 2 pounds loss a week, because even then this is going to take me another year. I had read somewhere not to eat fewer than 900-1200 calories or your metabolism would go into starvation mode. But everybody is different. 1500 sounds like a decent diet plan. Even 1800 at my size. Should I be trying to force myself to consume all my calories even if I'm not hungry? Should I really be eating the exercise calories, or should I let them be extra weight loss? My progress at the gym has also been surprisingly fast. At first I couldn't even maintain 3 miles an hour on a 2 incline, and I'm already doing 3.5 at an 8 incline to keep my heart rate in the right Zone. I don't want to go any faster because then I begin to jog and I don't think that would be good for my knees. My wife is amazed that I can do 45 minutes on the elliptical, also maintaining my target heart rate. Could all this extra exercise and extra earned calories actually be sabotaging my metabolism instead of making it higher?

    First, starvation mode doesn't exist. Second, weight loss is not linear. It could be from excess sodium, but it's definitely not muscle. Third, 1500 is the lowest a male should eat. Ideally you should be eating to your goal after exercise. You want to fuel your body, and the video in the first post explains why. If you're having problems meeting your goal, add in some calorie dense items (nuts, nut butters, dairy, cooking oils, even a little treat if you have to).

    Why do you say its not muscle?

    Because muscle its hard to develop and under optimal conditions males can gain about 1/2 lb per week. And when you are on a vlcd diet, it's even more difficult to even sustain your muscle.

    Ok thank you, i was losing weight untill I started swimming a few weeks ago. And now ive put it on. Im was hoping it was muscle 😥

    Its water. Exercise causes microtears. As a result you body stores fluids to repair your muscles.

    Oh ok thank you 😁😁

    Also, as a data point, as a male, i hold 2-3 lbs regularly while i lift. Many women can hold more. I have seen some as much as 5-7.
  • heybalesheybales Posts: 16,961Member Member Posts: 16,961Member Member
    kimny72 wrote: »

    So if you sit at a desk all week and on the couch all weekend, but you go to the gym 4 times a werk, you choose sedentary and then log your exercise 4 times a week.
    .

    Well, that's largely what I did, though I may have underestimated just a tad. I said 'sitter's or whatever word they used, but I do move around a bit. I may do a bit more than 'sit', but figured it was a ballpark

    That's why the MFP method can be a tad more useful.

    Besides trying to teach a life lesson regarding weight maintenance:
    You do more you eat more.
    You do less you eat less.

    It also allows for some finer honing on estimated calories burned and therefore getting a deficit.

    On the TDEE calc's - there is no difference for daily activity, merely references to workouts.

    So a family man mail carrier walking their route doing 3 hrs of workouts weekly would be given same the same TDEE estimate as a single desk jockey/gamer doing 3hrs of workouts - if their physical stats matched.

    And that is obviously a big wrong.

    At least on MFP not only would that be improved, but the types of workouts - 3 hrs of lifting weekly is a far cry from 3 hrs over 5 days of max running for instance.

    And it matters. Too much deficit rarely has positive results in most peoples eyes as far as health or fitness matters, even purely from a weight perspective, if actually keeping it off matters.
    For people that love yo-yo dieting their life away always having a terrible relationship with their body and food - I'm sure they view it differently.

    ETA - most people it seems even with a true desk job, unless they come home and have no family responsibilities weeknights and weekends and are a bump on a log - or not actually sedentary.
    If family stuff to attend to besides the workouts - Lightly Active.
    That would likely give that 1000 cal deficit, if that's reasonable or desired.
    edited March 11
  • mummy_hmummy_h Posts: 99Member Member Posts: 99Member Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mummy_h wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mummy_h wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mummy_h wrote: »
    malibu927 wrote: »
    bad_dog_ny wrote: »
    I am afraid I might be slowing up my metabolism. MSP says I can eat 1840 calories per day to lose my target of 2 pounds a week. I have been going to the gym everyday, resistance and treadmill every other day, and then another form of cardio on the alternate days. Each day I do 45 minutes of cardio, including treadmill days, getting my heart rate up to Target of 138 BPM for at least half an hour. I didn't lose any weight this week, but I'm wondering if I could have gained muscle. I rarely even make my 1840 calories. Usually I clock in somewhere around 1500 to 1600 calories and I'm not hungry. I have lost 50 pounds and still need to lose about another 100. I feel better than I have in a very long time. I used to be in great shape. Several years ago I developed diabetes and a few months ago it became difficult to control my blood sugar even with high amounts of insulin. I eventually went on a carb-free diet and it took almost a month of that to get my blood glucose under control, and that was taking 120 units of basal insulin a day. Now in just a few weeks back at the gym I am down to 35 units a day, with great sugar control. I do not eat my exercise calories, and I was wondering if at 1500 calories a day I am sabotaging my metabolism. I could probably make it to the 1800 a day, but with the types of Foods I am now choosing I seem to get plenty of volume with a lot fewer calories. This week could just be an odd thing, too much salt and retained a little bit of water, or whatever. I would really like to stay at 2 pounds loss a week, because even then this is going to take me another year. I had read somewhere not to eat fewer than 900-1200 calories or your metabolism would go into starvation mode. But everybody is different. 1500 sounds like a decent diet plan. Even 1800 at my size. Should I be trying to force myself to consume all my calories even if I'm not hungry? Should I really be eating the exercise calories, or should I let them be extra weight loss? My progress at the gym has also been surprisingly fast. At first I couldn't even maintain 3 miles an hour on a 2 incline, and I'm already doing 3.5 at an 8 incline to keep my heart rate in the right Zone. I don't want to go any faster because then I begin to jog and I don't think that would be good for my knees. My wife is amazed that I can do 45 minutes on the elliptical, also maintaining my target heart rate. Could all this extra exercise and extra earned calories actually be sabotaging my metabolism instead of making it higher?

    First, starvation mode doesn't exist. Second, weight loss is not linear. It could be from excess sodium, but it's definitely not muscle. Third, 1500 is the lowest a male should eat. Ideally you should be eating to your goal after exercise. You want to fuel your body, and the video in the first post explains why. If you're having problems meeting your goal, add in some calorie dense items (nuts, nut butters, dairy, cooking oils, even a little treat if you have to).

    Why do you say its not muscle?

    Because muscle its hard to develop and under optimal conditions males can gain about 1/2 lb per week. And when you are on a vlcd diet, it's even more difficult to even sustain your muscle.

    Ok thank you, i was losing weight untill I started swimming a few weeks ago. And now ive put it on. Im was hoping it was muscle 😥

    Its water. Exercise causes microtears. As a result you body stores fluids to repair your muscles.

    Oh ok thank you 😁😁

    Also, as a data point, as a male, i hold 2-3 lbs regularly while i lift. Many women can hold more. I have seen some as much as 5-7.

    Thankyou thats so helpful
  • mrsdunc07mrsdunc07 Posts: 6Member Member Posts: 6Member Member
    so linking your fitbit to MFP is that TDEE you mentioned right? And I should not consume those extra calories I burned throughout the day? Should i just add in my walk (like 60 min walk and however many calories my fitbit says I burned?)
  • heybalesheybales Posts: 16,961Member Member Posts: 16,961Member Member
    mrsdunc07 wrote: »
    so linking your fitbit to MFP is that TDEE you mentioned right? And I should not consume those extra calories I burned throughout the day? Should i just add in my walk (like 60 min walk and however many calories my fitbit says I burned?)

    Fitbit is giving a TDEE value when you look at it's calories burned (unless looking at a workout, which is already in the TDEE).

    Fitbit sends that TDEE over to MFP, that does math to correct itself.

    And then take a deficit.

    That Calorie Adjustment you see on Exercise Diary is that correction, so that MFP can maintain the deficit you selected.

    So yes you would eat it back until proved it's way wrong (like tons of extra distance from false steps, or you take tons of daily steps and the distance ends up way inflated).

    No you don't log the walk because it's already in the TDEE figure - Total Daily Energy Expend - that's everything.
  • neugebauer52neugebauer52 Posts: 839Member Member Posts: 839Member Member
    SideSteel wrote: »
    Here's a brief and simple explanation.

    This video was approved by mod team before posting and this is a non monetized channel. I only mention for TOU/disclosure purposes. @psuLemon

    Thank you for this straight forward explanation. Now I understand why my weight loss over time does not tally with my calorie consumption.
    edited March 12
  • Kitsgirl2Kitsgirl2 Posts: 18Member Member Posts: 18Member Member
    Thanks for that video. Now I understand what was happening when I added in my fitbit activity. It added a few hundred calories to my day which I didn't understand so I removed the syncing.

    I have 100lbs to lose and losing about 1.5lb a week. I don't 'eat' my calories for the activities that I do. I can see now that if I did intense exercise that I would have to eat more calories for energy but right now my exercise is getting 10K steps in and a few days of the bike in and out of the gym.

    Here's what I don't understand and feeling dumb that I'm missing something here. For those of you who exercised and burned 250 calories and then ate those calories, doesn't that mean you didn't get the advantage of burning calories to lose weight? Is the idea to just get the weight reduction from the calories you are eating which is now less and the working out is not for the calories burned (since you eat them) but for the benefit of the healthy side effects of working out? I always thought the losing weight is to reduce calories and exercise more but if you are eating all the calories you worked off, how does it work?
  • estherdragonbatestherdragonbat Posts: 5,112Member Member Posts: 5,112Member Member
    Kitsgirl2 wrote: »
    Thanks for that video. Now I understand what was happening when I added in my fitbit activity. It added a few hundred calories to my day which I didn't understand so I removed the syncing.

    I have 100lbs to lose and losing about 1.5lb a week. I don't 'eat' my calories for the activities that I do. I can see now that if I did intense exercise that I would have to eat more calories for energy but right now my exercise is getting 10K steps in and a few days of the bike in and out of the gym.

    Here's what I don't understand and feeling dumb that I'm missing something here. For those of you who exercised and burned 250 calories and then ate those calories, doesn't that mean you didn't get the advantage of burning calories to lose weight? Is the idea to just get the weight reduction from the calories you are eating which is now less and the working out is not for the calories burned (since you eat them) but for the benefit of the healthy side effects of working out? I always thought the losing weight is to reduce calories and exercise more but if you are eating all the calories you worked off, how does it work?

    Running too large a calorie deficit isn't a good thing. In addition to increased hunger and lethargy, it can impact your hair, nails, monthly cycle, mood, and likely some other stuff (including the intensity of your workouts). Basically, to lose 1/2lb per week, you need to run a 250-calorie average daily deficit. How you get there—diet, exercise, or combo—makes no difference for weight loss. It can make a huge difference for overall fitness, muscle preservation, etc. The thing is, when you're getting a good workout in, if you don't up your calorie intake, you'll be running too high a deficit. Note: not talking about a 15-minute trip to the corner supermarket; eat back or don't eat back those 60-odd calories, nobody cares. A 500-calorie two-hour walk? Totally different story.

    Me personally, I set my calorie goal for less aggressive than the maximum and eat back at least half my exercise calories, keeping the other half as a cushion against guesstimates—I log my strength training under cardio and get told I burn about 200 calories per hour; no clue if that's right, but I eat back 100 and the weight is dropping. The bread I buy at my bakery may not follow the same recipe as the bread I select from the MFP database and the calories could vary, etc.
  • Kitsgirl2Kitsgirl2 Posts: 18Member Member Posts: 18Member Member
    Kitsgirl2 wrote: »
    Thanks for that video. Now I understand what was happening when I added in my fitbit activity. It added a few hundred calories to my day which I didn't understand so I removed the syncing.

    I have 100lbs to lose and losing about 1.5lb a week. I don't 'eat' my calories for the activities that I do. I can see now that if I did intense exercise that I would have to eat more calories for energy but right now my exercise is getting 10K steps in and a few days of the bike in and out of the gym.

    Here's what I don't understand and feeling dumb that I'm missing something here. For those of you who exercised and burned 250 calories and then ate those calories, doesn't that mean you didn't get the advantage of burning calories to lose weight? Is the idea to just get the weight reduction from the calories you are eating which is now less and the working out is not for the calories burned (since you eat them) but for the benefit of the healthy side effects of working out? I always thought the losing weight is to reduce calories and exercise more but if you are eating all the calories you worked off, how does it work?

    Running too large a calorie deficit isn't a good thing. In addition to increased hunger and lethargy, it can impact your hair, nails, monthly cycle, mood, and likely some other stuff (including the intensity of your workouts). Basically, to lose 1/2lb per week, you need to run a 250-calorie average daily deficit. How you get there—diet, exercise, or combo—makes no difference for weight loss. It can make a huge difference for overall fitness, muscle preservation, etc. The thing is, when you're getting a good workout in, if you don't up your calorie intake, you'll be running too high a deficit. Note: not talking about a 15-minute trip to the corner supermarket; eat back or don't eat back those 60-odd calories, nobody cares. A 500-calorie two-hour walk? Totally different story.

    Me personally, I set my calorie goal for less aggressive than the maximum and eat back at least half my exercise calories, keeping the other half as a cushion against guesstimates—I log my strength training under cardio and get told I burn about 200 calories per hour; no clue if that's right, but I eat back 100 and the weight is dropping. The bread I buy at my bakery may not follow the same recipe as the bread I select from the MFP database and the calories could vary, etc.

    Thanks Estherdragon, I think I'm understanding it better now. In my head I was dividing up weight loss thinking half would be from reducing the calories (can't believe how much I must have been eating before) and half from now exercising and moving more. It's the X amount of deficit FOR THE DAY NO MATTER WHICH COMBO makes more sense. Once I've lost more weight and can do more intense exercising then I'll have to watch/increase the calories.
  • cwolfman13cwolfman13 Posts: 36,682Member Member Posts: 36,682Member Member
    Kitsgirl2 wrote: »
    Thanks for that video. Now I understand what was happening when I added in my fitbit activity. It added a few hundred calories to my day which I didn't understand so I removed the syncing.

    I have 100lbs to lose and losing about 1.5lb a week. I don't 'eat' my calories for the activities that I do. I can see now that if I did intense exercise that I would have to eat more calories for energy but right now my exercise is getting 10K steps in and a few days of the bike in and out of the gym.

    Here's what I don't understand and feeling dumb that I'm missing something here. For those of you who exercised and burned 250 calories and then ate those calories, doesn't that mean you didn't get the advantage of burning calories to lose weight? Is the idea to just get the weight reduction from the calories you are eating which is now less and the working out is not for the calories burned (since you eat them) but for the benefit of the healthy side effects of working out? I always thought the losing weight is to reduce calories and exercise more but if you are eating all the calories you worked off, how does it work?

    MFP will give me a target of around 2000 calories per day to lose 1 Lb per week...that is before any deliberate exercise is performed. This means that MFP is estimating my non exercise maintenance calories to be 2500 (500 calorie per day deficit). If I exercise and burn 350 calories and didn't account for that, my deficit would increase to 850 calories. I can eat them back and still maintain my 500 calorie deficit eating 2350 calories because my maintenance calories of 2500 would have also increased to 2850 and 2850-2350=500 calorie deficit still.
  • Kitsgirl2Kitsgirl2 Posts: 18Member Member Posts: 18Member Member
    Thanks cwolfman13, I think I get it
  • KarenPorter1962KarenPorter1962 Posts: 4Member, Premium Member Posts: 4Member, Premium Member
    SideSteel wrote: »
    Here's a brief and simple explanation.

    This video was approved by mod team before posting and this is a non monetized channel. I only mention for TOU/disclosure purposes. @psuLemon


  • msindie20msindie20 Posts: 13Member Member Posts: 13Member Member
    Great video thank you! I have a fairly active job. Usually burn average 1500 daily. Set my goal to 1450 cals per day. How many of my active cals should I be eating back do you think? I'm usually stuffed on 1450 lol so no idea how I am going to fit more in. Also, any goods in particular I need to use the exercise cals on or not? Thanks very much 😀.
Sign In or Register to comment.