We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
60% of exercise calories eaten back
ferd_ttp5
Posts: 246 Member
Many here suggesting to eat 50-70% of exercise calories. And i'm a bit confuse so i will do it at 60% and also 60% is good base to what i'm feelin after exercise. Feel free to give your opinions below to the comment section. Thanks
0
Replies
-
Nothing wrong with eating back 60%.
Do it consistently over a month, then reassess. If you are losing at your goal, stick with the 60%. If you are over or under your goal adjust accordingly.
Cheers, h.2 -
i eat all mine back, its never stopped me losing weight.3
-
Yes, And im also at first planning to eat all back but I think cycling moderately for an hour gives me so much 600+ and im doubting if it is accurate on that rateTavistockToad wrote: »i eat all mine back, its never stopped me losing weight.
0 -
I ran 75 mins this morning and burned 650 calories, I think your burn rate seems appropriate. Do you have a HR monitor?1
-
1
-
This 100% depends on how accurate you are tracking your exercise calories. A lot of apps over-estimate the workout calories. Depending on your deficit, you might have a stall on your weight-loss.
The best method? The scale. The scale never lies, especially in the long term. I am not talking about daily fluctuations. Rather, weeks and weeks of data and tracking. Try 100%, not losing weight as you hoped? 80%. 70% etc etc. Find your sweet spot and stay there.
Adjusting your calories should be there in your mind all the time.0 -
Yes, And im also at first planning to eat all back but I think cycling moderately for an hour gives me so much 600+ and im doubting if it is accurate on that rateTavistockToad wrote: »i eat all mine back, its never stopped me losing weight.
How are you estimating that 600+?
60% of 600 is only 360 - that's very low. I couldn't imagine going that slow to only burn that amount!
Would as a generalisation say be cautious if using MFP cycling categories as they tend to be very generous if you are riding a road bike. Especially if you happen to be at the bottom end of the speed ranges given.
What average speed is "moderate" for you?
What kind of bike and terrain?
Have you tried Strava for comparison?
1 -
I'm riding a heavy roadie bike. If i'm going up i'm riding at slightly uphill and when im going back home i'm riding at a slightly downhill which increasing my speed but i'm not taking free wheeling i still cycling until I arive home.
Yes, And im also at first planning to eat all back but I think cycling moderately for an hour gives me so much 600+ and im doubting if it is accurate on that rateTavistockToad wrote: »i eat all mine back, its never stopped me losing weight.
How are you estimating that 600+?
60% of 600 is only 360 - that's very low. I couldn't imagine going that slow to only burn that amount!
Would as a generalisation say be cautious if using MFP cycling categories as they tend to be very generous if you are riding a road bike. Especially if you happen to be at the bottom end of the speed ranges given.
What average speed is "moderate" for you?
What kind of bike and terrain?
Have you tried Strava for comparison?
0 -
-
When I'm actively losing weight ...
If I exercise a little bit (like a 1 hour walk = 200 calories), I'll just eat about 50% of my exercise calories back.
If I exercise a moderate amount (like a 3 hour bicycle ride = 1200 calories), I'll eat about 75% of my exercise calories back.
If I exercise quite a bit (like a 8 hour bicycle ride = 3200 calories), I'll try to eat about 90% of my exercise calories back.
2 -
I eat all my exercise calories back, never stopped me losing weight or keeping it off.0
-
TavistockToad wrote: »i eat all mine back, its never stopped me losing weight.
I was doing this, then I got a Fitbit Charge 2, which estimates my calories burned per mile at 120 calories. This is probably almost double what it should be. I am planning to spend the next month using a manual calculation – miles travelled x 65 (a more appropriate calculation) plus base calories – and then revise from there depending on loss.0 -
girlinahat wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »i eat all mine back, its never stopped me losing weight.
I was doing this, then I got a Fitbit Charge 2, which estimates my calories burned per mile at 120 calories. This is probably almost double what it should be. I am planning to spend the next month using a manual calculation – miles travelled x 65 (a more appropriate calculation) plus base calories – and then revise from there depending on loss.
I tend to check my garmin against bodyweight in lbs x 0.63 x distance on miles, but whatever works.1 -
60% back is a decent place to start. Pay attention to how you feel and results and then decide if you need to adjust it after a few weeks. If you are feeling low energy, though, eating back more can always be an option.2
-
0
-
That's why I asked. If someone runs really slowly and does 3 miles in an hour they will burn far less than someone who runs 6 miles in the same hour.
Depending upon pace and terrain, I go between 110 and 120 calories per mile.0 -
0
-
heiliskrimsli wrote: »
For you.
That number depends very much on your weight. The more weight you have to transport each mile, the more calories you will burn doing so.0 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »
For you.
That number depends very much on your weight. The more weight you have to transport each mile, the more calories you will burn doing so.
The more you weigh, generally, the slower you go, which reduces your calorie burn per mile.
Weight is part of it. So is pace.0 -
If running/jogging total miles is a good way to estimate it. I tend to assume 100 cal/mile is a good standard, although I think that pegs to 150 lb. It's lower for me, sadly, so I usually deduct 10-20% from that. More for a long run (like over 10 miles) since you would be burning calories anyway during the time you run.
Anyway, I always assume that MapMyRide overstates calories, although it actually mapped well to my HRM when I've used both. I tend to assume about 60%, but in reality I do think that's likely low, since I used to to lose more than expected when riding a lot and dieting at the same time. However, for me, long not particularly taxing (not that fast, not hilly, basically commuting around here plus riding extra for fun) is the perfect weight loss exercise as I tend not to get more hungry in the way I do when running lots of miles.
On the other hand, when I did a week long, somewhat hilly bike trip I didn't lose a lb, since I also ate a lot! Wasn't trying to, though.0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »
For you.
That number depends very much on your weight. The more weight you have to transport each mile, the more calories you will burn doing so.
The more you weigh, generally, the slower you go, which reduces your calorie burn per mile.
Weight is part of it. So is pace.
And height and training and many other factors. You stated an absolute correlation, as though you assumed that your numbers applied to everyone. If someone weighs more because they are taller, they will certainly burn more calories per mile and will not necessarily be slowed down by that excess weight (since their longer legs compensate).0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.5K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions