Does anyone eat their exercise calories while losing?
Replies
-
I eat most or all of them, and I've never had a problem with it, but my exercise estimates are generally fairly accurate.
ETA: I'm also set to sedentary, which means my deficit is a little more aggressive, so I can handle eating a few extra calories if I do overestimate.0 -
Having had no work to do today I read the entire discussion. A few "my situation" thoughts, if I may. Earlier in this discussion I suggested the OP to eat 50% because, and I'll be blunt, the received tribal wisdom thinks the exercise database is too generous. I want to change my statement based on my recent results.
I don't know of any exercise I have used in which the database was egregiously wrong.
Walking? If it knows my speed and my weight, it gives the accurate number.
Bicycling? Just as accurate accounting for my possible GIGO variable.
Stair climbing? Accurate.
Rowing? Accurate.
I mentioned that cardio machine I have that claimed I could burn 1000 calories in an hour and said I didn't believe it. I repudiate my disbelief. I've continued to use it, as well as my other 2 cardio machines, and compared my exertion and exhaustion on all of them and indeed, it's not giving me numbers that are out of line with the others.
Moreover, my weight loss results are mathematically in line with the net calorie deficit of my carefully weighed food intake and my carefully recorded exercises. For several weeks I tracked my net calories and my weight, as well as the weight I should be if the calculated calorie deficit were subtracted from my starting weight. The values I derived for actual/predicted weight were consistently very close.
I want to revise my advice. OP, eat 100% of your exercise calories if you are accurately recording both your food and your exercise. Since sloppy record-keeping is your responsibility, not MFP's, you decide how much margin to leave for your slop.4 -
I'd say walking, biking etc that determines time/speed can be fairly accurate.
It's things like aerobics such as zumba that can definitely overstate calories burned. One person could put every ounce of their being into the class, the next person could be very unfit and slower, and still the next person may put a halfassed effort in.2 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Having had no work to do today I read the entire discussion. A few "my situation" thoughts, if I may. Earlier in this discussion I suggested the OP to eat 50% because, and I'll be blunt, the received tribal wisdom thinks the exercise database is too generous. I want to change my statement based on my recent results.
I don't know of any exercise I have used in which the database was egregiously wrong.
Walking? If it knows my speed and my weight, it gives the accurate number.
Bicycling? Just as accurate accounting for my possible GIGO variable.
Stair climbing? Accurate.
Rowing? Accurate.
I mentioned that cardio machine I have that claimed I could burn 1000 calories in an hour and said I didn't believe it. I repudiate my disbelief. I've continued to use it, as well as my other 2 cardio machines, and compared my exertion and exhaustion on all of them and indeed, it's not giving me numbers that are out of line with the others.
Moreover, my weight loss results are mathematically in line with the net calorie deficit of my carefully weighed food intake and my carefully recorded exercises. For several weeks I tracked my net calories and my weight, as well as the weight I should be if the calculated calorie deficit were subtracted from my starting weight. The values I derived for actual/predicted weight were consistently very close.
I want to revise my advice. OP, eat 100% of your exercise calories if you are accurately recording both your food and your exercise. Since sloppy record-keeping is your responsibility, not MFP's, you decide how much margin to leave for your slop.
It's been fairly accurate for me, too, and I've been logging here for 6 years.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I'd say walking, biking etc that determines time/speed can be fairly accurate.
It's things like aerobics such as zumba that can definitely overstate calories burned. One person could put every ounce of their being into the class, the next person could be very unfit and slower, and still the next person may put a halfassed effort in.
Excellent point.1 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Having had no work to do today I read the entire discussion. A few "my situation" thoughts, if I may. Earlier in this discussion I suggested the OP to eat 50% because, and I'll be blunt, the received tribal wisdom thinks the exercise database is too generous. I want to change my statement based on my recent results.
I don't know of any exercise I have used in which the database was egregiously wrong.
Walking? If it knows my speed and my weight, it gives the accurate number.
Bicycling? Just as accurate accounting for my possible GIGO variable.
Stair climbing? Accurate.
Rowing? Accurate.
I mentioned that cardio machine I have that claimed I could burn 1000 calories in an hour and said I didn't believe it. I repudiate my disbelief. I've continued to use it, as well as my other 2 cardio machines, and compared my exertion and exhaustion on all of them and indeed, it's not giving me numbers that are out of line with the others.
Moreover, my weight loss results are mathematically in line with the net calorie deficit of my carefully weighed food intake and my carefully recorded exercises. For several weeks I tracked my net calories and my weight, as well as the weight I should be if the calculated calorie deficit were subtracted from my starting weight. The values I derived for actual/predicted weight were consistently very close.
I want to revise my advice. OP, eat 100% of your exercise calories if you are accurately recording both your food and your exercise. Since sloppy record-keeping is your responsibility, not MFP's, you decide how much margin to leave for your slop.
My HRM records about exactly HALF of the calories burned that the machine does, for my cycling sessions. I have not run on the treadmill in a while, but it was probably closer to my HRM (about 300 calories for 3 miles). The other machines I use (elliptical and stepmill) both are about 30% higher than my HRM. For that reason, I use my HRM numbers and never the machines.0 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't eat back exercise either, but when I calculate my calorie goal (based on TDEE) I of course use my ACTUAL activity level (the fact I run about 35 miles per week and do other exercise) and don't pretend to be sedentary. Saying you stick to a calorie goal and don't eat back exercise when the calorie goal is calculated based on a sedentary activity level you don't have doesn't make sense to me.
For me focusing on hunger isn't useful as I may or may not be hungrier on a day I workout. Sometimes I'm more hungry the following day, which is why I like the TDEE method. But I don't try to achieve a calorie deficit that goes beyond what seems sensible by working out and ignoring it in my calorie goal.
That's not what I said. I have a calorie goal (my own - not MFP). Generally I stay around that number with my normal activity. On a more active day, IF I find myself hungrier, I eat more. You are far more active than me - if I ran 35 miles I week I would be eating like a race horse. I don't run anymore (well very little) due to a healing knee. I don't *pretend* to be sedentary. I have a very sedentary day...and then try to fit in exercise at night. In nearly 8 weeks, I have lost about 7 pounds. Not exactly a "deficit that goes beyond what seems sensible".
I wasn't directly commenting on what you do (as I don't know the details), but saying that I understand not changing what you eat directly based on that day's exercise, but do think it is important to eat in a way that reflects activity. So often in these "should I eat back exercise" threads people ignore that it really depends on the circumstances. I don't eat back exercise as in adding in exercise and eating it back, but I absolutely determine my calorie goal based on overall activity. I see a lot of people suggesting that it's better or stronger or some such to stick to the MFP calorie goal or some other quite low goal based on a claim of being sedentary and only eat back exercise (or otherwise account for a much more active lifestyle) IF you are really hungry or absolutely cannot manage not to. And the underlying message there is "if you need to, but if you are tough enough you won't need to." I think it's important to point out that overall goal should be based on real overall activity in some way (basically, TDEE), and not assume sedentary if one is not.
Obviously if one isn't all that active or if one has a moderate goal that takes into account realistic activity, there's no need to adjust based on daily activity, or even one particularly high day.
This may be no different than what you are meaning to say, but for newbies I want to make sure it is communicated.
And I do agree that weekly losses is a reasonable way to determine if a particular approach is overly aggressive or not (unless someone is struggling with going off plan or bingeing -- again, not referring to you).3 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »You know, for the last couple of days, I've gotten barely any exercise (preparing to leave home, time on a train, etc yesterday; helping my parents around the house today). And I was a bit worried about how to manage without those extra calories. Funny thing. I'm actually not hungry on 1450 calories if I'm not doing stuff to increase my deficit, like 2-hour walks or 50 minutes on a glider. Whereas if I try to go through the day without eating back half my exercise calories, when I'm more active, it's a different story. I guess I really do need the extra fuel.
This is my experience too. When I'm active, I feel like I NEED all my calories. On the days when I'm sedentary, my 1,460 is fine.1 -
I do my best to make sure my calculations are as accurate as possible, including subtracting 2 kcal/min to get net burn. But then I eat 100% back.
Just to make sure l understand... For example, if u worked out for 60 min and got 200 exercise cals, u would subtract 120 calories from the 200, leaving u with 80 net exercise calories?
@mlsh1969, yes. But my statement was brief for simplicity. Specifically, what does it mean that I "got" 200 kcal? Let me explain further.
I've been losing/maintaining for 5+ years now, so I have my own system that works for me. When I started this process, I was concerned about the accuracy of my exercise calories. I did a lot of research and reading, got a heart rate monitor, etc. I learned very early on that the reported burns from exercise equipment are very inaccurate.
After some work I finally figured out burns for the exercises I do. For example, I get a gross burn of 11 kcal/min from the elliptical based on my intensity and weight. This is very close to the value that MFP gives, and it was close to my HRM. But I only record 9 kcal/min. So 30 minutes on the elliptical give me 270 kcal, more or less.
I subtract 2 kcal/min because if I weren't exercising, that's roughly how much I would be burning. I don't want to double count those calories.
If I relied on the machine, I would have been way off. The elliptical I use gives me almost exactly double this value. It's nuts. I think that's why many people say to "eat half" - they're not actually eating half, they're eating half of the inaccurate burns reported by machines or other databases.
Hope that's helpful!1 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Having had no work to do today I read the entire discussion. A few "my situation" thoughts, if I may. Earlier in this discussion I suggested the OP to eat 50% because, and I'll be blunt, the received tribal wisdom thinks the exercise database is too generous. I want to change my statement based on my recent results.
I don't know of any exercise I have used in which the database was egregiously wrong.
Walking? If it knows my speed and my weight, it gives the accurate number.
Bicycling? Just as accurate accounting for my possible GIGO variable.
Stair climbing? Accurate.
Rowing? Accurate.
I mentioned that cardio machine I have that claimed I could burn 1000 calories in an hour and said I didn't believe it. I repudiate my disbelief. I've continued to use it, as well as my other 2 cardio machines, and compared my exertion and exhaustion on all of them and indeed, it's not giving me numbers that are out of line with the others.
Moreover, my weight loss results are mathematically in line with the net calorie deficit of my carefully weighed food intake and my carefully recorded exercises. For several weeks I tracked my net calories and my weight, as well as the weight I should be if the calculated calorie deficit were subtracted from my starting weight. The values I derived for actual/predicted weight were consistently very close.
I want to revise my advice. OP, eat 100% of your exercise calories if you are accurately recording both your food and your exercise. Since sloppy record-keeping is your responsibility, not MFP's, you decide how much margin to leave for your slop.
My HRM records about exactly HALF of the calories burned that the machine does, for my cycling sessions. I have not run on the treadmill in a while, but it was probably closer to my HRM (about 300 calories for 3 miles). The other machines I use (elliptical and stepmill) both are about 30% higher than my HRM. For that reason, I use my HRM numbers and never the machines.
I don't think anyone has ever suggested machine numbers to either be accurate or to be used in place of HRM numbers, particularly for steady state cardio. And of course some time testing the numbers you are getting to tweak accuracy.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I wasn't directly commenting on what you do (as I don't know the details), but saying that I understand not changing what you eat directly based on that day's exercise, but do think it is important to eat in a way that reflects activity. So often in these "should I eat back exercise" threads people ignore that it really depends on the circumstances. I don't eat back exercise as in adding in exercise and eating it back, but I absolutely determine my calorie goal based on overall activity. I see a lot of people suggesting that it's better or stronger or some such to stick to the MFP calorie goal or some other quite low goal based on a claim of being sedentary and only eat back exercise (or otherwise account for a much more active lifestyle) IF you are really hungry or absolutely cannot manage not to. And the underlying message there is "if you need to, but if you are tough enough you won't need to." I think it's important to point out that overall goal should be based on real overall activity in some way (basically, TDEE), and not assume sedentary if one is not.
Obviously if one isn't all that active or if one has a moderate goal that takes into account realistic activity, there's no need to adjust based on daily activity, or even one particularly high day.
This may be no different than what you are meaning to say, but for newbies I want to make sure it is communicated.
And I do agree that weekly losses is a reasonable way to determine if a particular approach is overly aggressive or not (unless someone is struggling with going off plan or bingeing -- again, not referring to you).
I agree that your calorie goals should be based on general overall activity. ( I've never had any issues with bingeing or eating disorders, so that definitely does not apply to me.)
I try to get in as much exercise as I can, but the fact that I am sitting, for so many hours a day, is I feel, a "handicap" that I am always trying to offset (see that study below - not anything new, but it is always in the back of my mind). I have been fitness-focused for over 30 years, but new responsibilities are taking a toll on the time I have available to exercise, and I hate it. 
For me personally, it's just more useful to use a sedentary setting, and track my exercise on FitBit. It's useful for me, mentally, to track my effort. That said, I generally do not "eat around my activity". My daily calorie goal does not change, except when I really push hard and feel that I need to eat more. So yes, I certainly take activity into account, but it's just those days where I feel I need to eat more. I always properly fuel my body; I am one of those people that simply cannot work out if I am hungry or weak. Heck I have been known to leave the gym and walk over to Wendy's to get some chicken, and then continue my workout.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/134/13/e2620 -
kshama2001 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »It is the way this tool is designed. Your exercise isn't accounted for in your activity level...it would make sense that it should be accounted for in some way. Also, why does everyone seem to think MFP is trying to trick them...makes no sense.
Have you seen men think exercise shouldn't count? I've only noticed women, and so I suspect something cultural specific to women.
Yes, many times. Usually they are eating far less than they should too, like 1200 calories. It is not specific to women.
Oh, I've definitely seen men undereating, but hadn't noticed them thinking exercise calories shouldn't count.
I don't see the need to make it some sort of gender issue. It's just counter-intuitive to say that if burning more calories than one is ingesting reduces one's weight, burning even more calories will reduce that weight more. It's about reaching goals.
Whose goal is to wind up skinny fat because they burned off all their muscle with an excessive calorie deficit?2 -
I do my best to make sure my calculations are as accurate as possible, including subtracting 2 kcal/min to get net burn. But then I eat 100% back.
Just to make sure l understand... For example, if u worked out for 60 min and got 200 exercise cals, u would subtract 120 calories from the 200, leaving u with 80 net exercise calories?
@mlsh1969, yes. But my statement was brief for simplicity. Specifically, what does it mean that I "got" 200 kcal? Let me explain further.
I've been losing/maintaining for 5+ years now, so I have my own system that works for me. When I started this process, I was concerned about the accuracy of my exercise calories. I did a lot of research and reading, got a heart rate monitor, etc. I learned very early on that the reported burns from exercise equipment are very inaccurate.
After some work I finally figured out burns for the exercises I do. For example, I get a gross burn of 11 kcal/min from the elliptical based on my intensity and weight. This is very close to the value that MFP gives, and it was close to my HRM. But I only record 9 kcal/min. So 30 minutes on the elliptical give me 270 kcal, more or less.
I subtract 2 kcal/min because if I weren't exercising, that's roughly how much I would be burning. I don't want to double count those calories.
If I relied on the machine, I would have been way off. The elliptical I use gives me almost exactly double this value. It's nuts. I think that's why many people say to "eat half" - they're not actually eating half, they're eating half of the inaccurate burns reported by machines or other databases.
Hope that's helpful!
Actually yes that was very helpful and quite a brilliant idea. Im going to work out some of my burns and try ur techniques. Thank you1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »It is the way this tool is designed. Your exercise isn't accounted for in your activity level...it would make sense that it should be accounted for in some way. Also, why does everyone seem to think MFP is trying to trick them...makes no sense.
Have you seen men think exercise shouldn't count? I've only noticed women, and so I suspect something cultural specific to women.
Yes, many times. Usually they are eating far less than they should too, like 1200 calories. It is not specific to women.
Oh, I've definitely seen men undereating, but hadn't noticed them thinking exercise calories shouldn't count.
I don't see the need to make it some sort of gender issue. It's just counter-intuitive to say that if burning more calories than one is ingesting reduces one's weight, burning even more calories will reduce that weight more. It's about reaching goals.
Whose goal is to wind up skinny fat because they burned off all their muscle with an excessive calorie deficit?
Or create health issues/faint mid workout etc etc. My goal is to get to goal looking and feeling awesome. Going as fast as possible minimises the possibility of that hugely.5 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I'd say walking, biking etc that determines time/speed can be fairly accurate.
It's things like aerobics such as zumba that can definitely overstate calories burned. One person could put every ounce of their being into the class, the next person could be very unfit and slower, and still the next person may put a halfassed effort in.
I agree with this because sometimes l do just halfass it and sometimes give it all l got. I think walking is accurate and biking somewhat accurate.1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »I don't think anyone has ever suggested machine numbers to either be accurate or to be used in place of HRM numbers, particularly for steady state cardio. And of course some time testing the numbers you are getting to tweak accuracy.
I was commenting on the post I quoted as he indicated that in HIS experience, the machines were giving accurate numbers.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I'd say walking, biking etc that determines time/speed can be fairly accurate.
It's things like aerobics such as zumba that can definitely overstate calories burned. One person could put every ounce of their being into the class, the next person could be very unfit and slower, and still the next person may put a halfassed effort in.
I agree with this because sometimes l do just halfass it and sometimes give it all l got. I think walking is accurate and biking somewhat accurate.
FYI, the last time I did a test, an HRM over-stated my bike calories by 40 %.0 -
amymoreorless wrote: »I eat my exercise calories back (yes I am female). I have lost 35 pounds so far.
I exercise a LOT. I am a runner so sometimes my calorie intake goes well over 2000 a day. I am still shedding pounds.
I find it much more sustainable to eat those calories back in the long term. No binges
This (although for me it's cycling)2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I'd say walking, biking etc that determines time/speed can be fairly accurate.
It's things like aerobics such as zumba that can definitely overstate calories burned. One person could put every ounce of their being into the class, the next person could be very unfit and slower, and still the next person may put a halfassed effort in.
I agree with this because sometimes l do just halfass it and sometimes give it all l got. I think walking is accurate and biking somewhat accurate.
FYI, the last time I did a test, an HRM over-stated my bike calories by 40 %.
Oh really, ok l will need to look into this thx0 -
lc_getsfit wrote: »Does anyone eat their exercise calories while losing? Do you eat a certain amount?
If you eat them do you track them manually or use a fitness tracker synced (like a Fitbit)!
Not deliberately. I just eat and make sure I don't go over my calorie goal. If I exercise I eat more and still stop before going over the new higher total.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »It is the way this tool is designed. Your exercise isn't accounted for in your activity level...it would make sense that it should be accounted for in some way. Also, why does everyone seem to think MFP is trying to trick them...makes no sense.
Have you seen men think exercise shouldn't count? I've only noticed women, and so I suspect something cultural specific to women.
Yes, many times. Usually they are eating far less than they should too, like 1200 calories. It is not specific to women.
Oh, I've definitely seen men undereating, but hadn't noticed them thinking exercise calories shouldn't count.
I don't see the need to make it some sort of gender issue. It's just counter-intuitive to say that if burning more calories than one is ingesting reduces one's weight, burning even more calories will reduce that weight more. It's about reaching goals.
Whose goal is to wind up skinny fat because they burned off all their muscle with an excessive calorie deficit?
I see no point in eating to where I'm uncomfortable. I simply don't need cram in a bunch of extra food to match some number if I'm not running around hungry all the time so I won't.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions