Activity Settings vs "Eating Back" Exercise Calories
Silentpadna
Posts: 1,306 Member
[Long Post – Apologies up front]
I’ve come across many posts in my short time regularly posting here that talk about doing things like:
1. Eating less than what MFP recommends, just to be safe
2. Not eating back exercise calories, just to be safe
3. Setting your activity level to sedentary, just to be safe
The purpose of this post is to challenge this notion - in the context of credit being given for steps in particular. I’m going to do so by using an illustration, and then asking a few questions. In both scenarios, let’s assume that logging intake is accurate. Well I’ll ask one question up front: in the context of weight loss, what does it mean to “be safe”?
As an example, I’ll play with some hypothetical settings (I need to set my initial weight higher to illustrate my point because of the 1500 calorie floor, i.e. at my starting weight, sedentary would not allow me to shoot for 2 pounds per week for this illustration).
First, I am a 54 year old male, hypothetical current weight 290 pounds. I’m 5’11” and I average about 11,000 steps per day without any logged exercise. If I was a newbie (which I guess I still kind of am and I did this at first), I would want to create the maximum deficit for the most weight loss in the shortest time possible. Looking at some, if not most of the advice on these boards, I would input my data and set my activity level to sedentary, despite my actual activity level.
Scenario #1 - Sedentary
Doing this gives me a recommended calorie goal of 1650. Now today I’ve already put in roughly 11,000 steps with probably 2000-3000 more remaining. My credit for exercise (as of now) is 1010 calories (adjusted for the difference in actual weight). Let’s assume it stays the same. So my overall MFP Goal is now 2660 for the day. But, because I “want to be safe”, I decide to eat 50% of those exercise calories, meaning I will end up eating 2155. Sounds reasonable right? That’s what a good portion of people do here on MFP.
Scenario #2 - Active
In reality, however, averaging 11,000 steps per day is not sedentary. If I classify as active, things change as follows: MFP Goal is now 2750. When compared to the above, if I eat my recommendations and do not eat my exercise calories at all (which there wouldn’t be any because I didn’t log any), I eat 600 more calories than I did under the setting of sedentary. Why? Because there is no exercise adjustment, or if there is, it is very small. And in this case, you are getting your 1000 calorie deficit because MFP is assuming this regular activity.
In Scenario #1, you are increasing your deficit closer to 1500 per day. Is that healthy?
So I have to ask some leading questions here.
1. Why do we want to lose weight in the first place? Is it to be lighter? Is it to look better? Is it to be healthier?
2. If we want to lose weight, why would we want it to be in any other fashion than the healthiest (or safest) way possible?
3. Are we actually being safe by setting our activity level lower than actual? Or are we short-circuiting our success by creating excessive deficits?
My position is that you should really try to match your activity level to what you do every day. Particularly and specifically when it comes to walking or gaining steps by being on your feet. Purposeful exercise is different, but gaining steps through regular activity should be fully counted. Further, even if you purposefully walk during your work day, as I do (I take one 20 minute and one 40 minute walk every day and just leave those in my step count), it should be part of your regular activity level.
How you classify your activity is more important than you think, especially if you are an active person. You can see in the example above that each scenario is for the same person with the same steps. Which one loses weight in the healthiest manner?
I’ve come across many posts in my short time regularly posting here that talk about doing things like:
1. Eating less than what MFP recommends, just to be safe
2. Not eating back exercise calories, just to be safe
3. Setting your activity level to sedentary, just to be safe
The purpose of this post is to challenge this notion - in the context of credit being given for steps in particular. I’m going to do so by using an illustration, and then asking a few questions. In both scenarios, let’s assume that logging intake is accurate. Well I’ll ask one question up front: in the context of weight loss, what does it mean to “be safe”?
As an example, I’ll play with some hypothetical settings (I need to set my initial weight higher to illustrate my point because of the 1500 calorie floor, i.e. at my starting weight, sedentary would not allow me to shoot for 2 pounds per week for this illustration).
First, I am a 54 year old male, hypothetical current weight 290 pounds. I’m 5’11” and I average about 11,000 steps per day without any logged exercise. If I was a newbie (which I guess I still kind of am and I did this at first), I would want to create the maximum deficit for the most weight loss in the shortest time possible. Looking at some, if not most of the advice on these boards, I would input my data and set my activity level to sedentary, despite my actual activity level.
Scenario #1 - Sedentary
Doing this gives me a recommended calorie goal of 1650. Now today I’ve already put in roughly 11,000 steps with probably 2000-3000 more remaining. My credit for exercise (as of now) is 1010 calories (adjusted for the difference in actual weight). Let’s assume it stays the same. So my overall MFP Goal is now 2660 for the day. But, because I “want to be safe”, I decide to eat 50% of those exercise calories, meaning I will end up eating 2155. Sounds reasonable right? That’s what a good portion of people do here on MFP.
Scenario #2 - Active
In reality, however, averaging 11,000 steps per day is not sedentary. If I classify as active, things change as follows: MFP Goal is now 2750. When compared to the above, if I eat my recommendations and do not eat my exercise calories at all (which there wouldn’t be any because I didn’t log any), I eat 600 more calories than I did under the setting of sedentary. Why? Because there is no exercise adjustment, or if there is, it is very small. And in this case, you are getting your 1000 calorie deficit because MFP is assuming this regular activity.
In Scenario #1, you are increasing your deficit closer to 1500 per day. Is that healthy?
So I have to ask some leading questions here.
1. Why do we want to lose weight in the first place? Is it to be lighter? Is it to look better? Is it to be healthier?
2. If we want to lose weight, why would we want it to be in any other fashion than the healthiest (or safest) way possible?
3. Are we actually being safe by setting our activity level lower than actual? Or are we short-circuiting our success by creating excessive deficits?
My position is that you should really try to match your activity level to what you do every day. Particularly and specifically when it comes to walking or gaining steps by being on your feet. Purposeful exercise is different, but gaining steps through regular activity should be fully counted. Further, even if you purposefully walk during your work day, as I do (I take one 20 minute and one 40 minute walk every day and just leave those in my step count), it should be part of your regular activity level.
How you classify your activity is more important than you think, especially if you are an active person. You can see in the example above that each scenario is for the same person with the same steps. Which one loses weight in the healthiest manner?
15
Replies
-
I don't want to take away from your useful post. But to my mind, the difference isn't in the stated activity levels, it's in peoples' willingness to accept that they burn X calories through exercise if they claim to do so up front, versus their unwillingness to accept that they burned the same number of calories through exercise if they learn about it after the fact. In your example the numbers are very close to the same, until they're arbitrarily and capriciously adjusted by half. It's that adjustment that's causing the problem.8
-
NorthCascades wrote: »I don't want to take away from your useful post. But to my mind, the difference isn't in the stated activity levels, it's in peoples' willingness to accept that they burn X calories through exercise if they claim to do so up front, versus their unwillingness to accept that they burned the same number of calories through exercise if they learn about it after the fact. In your example the numbers are very close to the same, until they're arbitrarily and capriciously adjusted by half. It's that adjustment that's causing the problem.
The adjustment is indeed the problem, but my experience has been that the advice around here (with a few notable exceptions) is always "sedentary! sedentary! sedentary!" So, those people aren't willing to accept that they burn X calories up front either.4 -
I'm definitely one of the people who insists on sedantary (but eating all exercise calories back and tracking steps) but that's because my activity level varies so wildly (on Sunday I did 600 steps, nope, not kidding; today I hit 10K by lunch time) - I can't think of a better method that doesn't risk wildly over or under estimating my exercise calories.
I've never understood the "eat back 50%" thing. Does that number actually come from somewhere? Surely you just pick a course of action, stick with it for a month or two and then adjust based on your rate of loss? I know that for me I've found sedantary settings, eating back all calories given and logging all steps/exercise has me losing exactly on schedule.12 -
InkAndApples wrote: »I'm definitely one of the people who insists on sedantary (but eating all exercise calories back and tracking steps) but that's because my activity level varies so wildly (on Sunday I did 600 steps, nope, not kidding; today I hit 10K by lunch time) - I can't think of a better method that doesn't risk wildly over or under estimating my exercise calories.
Then it makes sense for you. As long as you're not preaching to people with more consistent activity levels that they MUST choose "sedentary" no matter what, you're not who I'm talking about.0 -
Silentpadna wrote: »[Long Post – Apologies up front]
I’ve come across many posts in my short time regularly posting here that talk about doing things like:
1. Eating less than what MFP recommends, just to be safe
2. Not eating back exercise calories, just to be safe
3. Setting your activity level to sedentary, just to be safe
1. I've never heard number one. I've seen a lot of people claiming to be eating their recommending MFP calories, but still not losing weight and then varying advice being given based upon that but I've never seen someone recommend eating less than MFP recommends just cause.
2. MFP's exercise calories seem to be notoriously high. I can't vouch for this as I have a fitness tracker so I don't use MFP's calorie burns, but from what I've read from other posters they do seem higher than they should be. Hence people recommending not to eat all of the exercise calories back because most likely they are not correct.
3. I kinda don't want to touch this one, but if I'm being honest I think a good deal of overweight/obese people are sedentary. I also think people are more likely to overestimate their activity level than underestimate it, at least in my experience.4 -
First, I think your post is very helpful for people to understand how the different methods affect things.
But your scenarios assume I am picking one choice and then sticking with it, regardless of the results, ie what my weight does.
Whichever method you choose, it's just a starting point. When people recommend eating back half your exercise calories, the idea is to start in the middle, see what happens and adjust accordingly. So if after 4-6 weeks, you realize you are losing weight too fast, you should eat back more of your exercise cals until your pace settles in.
Also, you are assuming we are just talking about general daily activity. When people are told to eat back 50% of their exercise calories, aren't we talking about purposeful exercise, like the hour they spend at the gym? In my mind at least, the typical recommendation is you choose your activity level based on the normal course of your day. Then you log purposeful exercise and eat back some of those calories.
The fly in the ointment is someone who is using an activity tracker to log both their daily activity AND their purposeful exercise. Different trackers on different people have very different accuracy. But in that case, if you want to sync your tracker and get calorie adjustments that way, you really have to choose sedentary and eat back your calories. And again, finding the right level will depend on trial and error, regardless of what you choose to start with.
What I found for me is that lightly active with only non-step exercise logged gave me pretty much the same amount of calories as sedentary with all my activity logged through syncing my Fitbit. No matter what method you use to get a calorie goal, it's ultimately up to the individual to monitor results and adjust accordingly. Activity levels, fitness trackers, logged exercise - it's all estimates and requires trial and error. The person who loses weight in the healthier manner is the one who keeps that in mind, right?5 -
Silentpadna wrote: »[Long Post – Apologies up front]
I’ve come across many posts in my short time regularly posting here that talk about doing things like:
1. Eating less than what MFP recommends, just to be safe
2. Not eating back exercise calories, just to be safe
3. Setting your activity level to sedentary, just to be safe
1. I've never heard number one. I've seen a lot of people claiming to be eating their recommending MFP calories, but still not losing weight and then varying advice being given based upon that but I've never seen someone recommend eating less than MFP recommends just cause.
I regularly see posts from people claiming to eat "under" MFP's recommendation rather than eating the recommended amount.
To be clear, I fully agree that "sedentary" is the correct choice for many people. Even when I suggest that people would find it easier to increase their daily activity level enough that "lightly active" would become appropriate, I usually recommend a pedometer or step counting app to keep them honest. But I regularly read advice suggesting that it's the correct choice for *everybody* - which is patently untrue.2 -
Maybe a better way to put this is:
Each scenario is the same person with the same activity level in reality. #1 sets their activity level lower and eats back 1/2 of their step calories (credited to them as exercise), resulting in a bigger deficit. #2 sets their activity level in accordance with what they actually do.
By setting the level at sedentary, #1 doesn't trust MFP's settings for higher activities. Why would they be accurate for a sedentary person, but not an active one? The only difference is that #1 counts their steps as exercise and discounts them; #2 includes them and trusts the initial setting.
Why trust MFP at all if you don't trust their initial settings?
In my experience, as I'm a bit of a numbers geek and have used the different settings, they track very well. Again, specifically with respect to daily activity and the burn you get from your steps.
For those with inconsistent activity levels, I totally get the idea of a lower setting. But I think that really only works when people know what they are dealing with.
There is a large number of people on this site, who seem to be looking for ways to increase their deficit under the (false) impression of trying to "be safe". As a result they run the risk of getting undernourished, and hitting the wall because they can't sustain that.4 -
I think your comments are helpful for folks just starting out, but I'd add this:
The settings are mainly to give you a starting point. What really matters is your actual weight loss rate.
After (say) a month, you have actual data that's specific to you, not just estimates from some some giant research study. (The MFP settings & calorie estimates rely on average results from such studies. Individual people may vary from the average.)
Adjust your real-life eating and activity based on your logging and results to stay at a healthy, reasonable actual rate of weight loss, like a max of 1% of body weight per week, less as you get 50-25 pounds from goal.7 -
Thank you @Silentpadna and @NorthCascades
Both of you are spot on.
and of course people should adjust 3-4 weeks later (4-6 weeks for pre-menopausal female) based on their actual weight trend results as derived through the use of a trending weight app or web-site.1 -
It is meant to give people a starting point to work from. From there they have to adjust to personal levels. its not a one size fits all T-shirt.3
-
SusanMFindlay wrote: »The adjustment is indeed the problem, but my experience has been that the advice around here (with a few notable exceptions) is always "sedentary! sedentary! sedentary!" So, those people aren't willing to accept that they burn X calories up front either.
Keep in mind that if (1) you have a fitness tracker linked to MFP, and (2) you have negative adjustments turned on, it doesn't matter very much whether you list yourself as sedentary or as a world class athlete training for the Tour of France. How many calories you get for the day will wind up being the same under any setting, because it's based on your actual instead of your estimated movement level.
But negative adjustments is turned off by default. So if you haven't taken the step to turn this on, it's possible to be given calories that you haven't earned.
I think what's really going on though is that you get calorie adjustments throughout the day, and this can confuse and frustrate people. If you put yourself down as "active," you're basically promising to move a lot, and if the systems feel like you haven't upheld that promise, they can take calories back, if you exercise later you'll get more. The "sedentary" setting avoids big downward swings, the ones that are the most stressful.6 -
NorthCascades wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »The adjustment is indeed the problem, but my experience has been that the advice around here (with a few notable exceptions) is always "sedentary! sedentary! sedentary!" So, those people aren't willing to accept that they burn X calories up front either.
Keep in mind that if (1) you have a fitness tracker linked to MFP, and (2) you have negative adjustments turned on, it doesn't matter very much whether you list yourself as sedentary or as a world class athlete training for the Tour of France. How many calories you get for the day will wind up being the same under any setting, because it's based on your actual instead of your estimated movement level.
But negative adjustments is turned off by default. So if you haven't taken the step to turn this on, it's possible to be given calories that you haven't earned.
I think what's really going on though is that you get calorie adjustments throughout the day, and this can confuse and frustrate people. If you put yourself down as "active," you're basically promising to move a lot, and if the systems feel like you haven't upheld that promise, they can take calories back, if you exercise later you'll get more. The "sedentary" setting avoids big downward swings, the ones that are the most stressful.
These are great points and I have no argument with them. I've got my negative settings turned on personally because I like to see what's going on all the time (plus it's another motivator for me to get off my *kitten*).
Here's a hypothetical question for those who eat back 50% (or whatever number they use): if you have a -200 calorie reduction, do you reduce your intake by only 100 calories?6 -
This is why I just think using the TDEE method is the best way as long as you have regular workouts and activity levels. MFP's method requires too much micromanaging and putting 'trust' into their workout database which for an over-zealous weight loss noob looking to have the fastest results possible might not be good. TDEE and tracking your weight for 3-4 weeks and THEN making adjustments takes all the guesswork out of it.0
-
Silentpadna wrote: »Here's a hypothetical question for those who eat back 50% (or whatever number they use): if you have a -200 calorie reduction, do you reduce your intake by only 100 calories?
I marked this as "awesome," and I'm sad the system won't let me mark it as "insightful" too.1 -
My activity varies so set it to sendentary and then eat back 100 percent of the exercise calories. Still losing.0
-
nosebag1212 wrote: »This is why I just think using the TDEE method is the best way as long as you have regular workouts and activity levels. MFP's method requires too much micromanaging and putting 'trust' into their workout database which for an over-zealous weight loss noob looking to have the fastest results possible might not be good. TDEE and tracking your weight for 3-4 weeks and THEN making adjustments takes all the guesswork out of it.
Highlighted the important part. I don't use TDEE for just that reason. I'm very inconsistent in what I do. I'm trying to get better, but summer's here and the time is right for dancing in the streets and what I do is weather dependent. Raining tomorrow so I'm not going to do much, but I ran to work today.
4 -
I prefer to set mine to sedentary and then eat back my fitbit calories. Works for me.0
-
Silentpadna wrote: »By setting the level at sedentary, #1 doesn't trust MFP's settings for higher activities. Why would they be accurate for a sedentary person, but not an active one? The only difference is that #1 counts their steps as exercise and discounts them; #2 includes them and trusts the initial setting.
Have you considered that it's not that they don't trust MFP's settings, but rather they may have no real idea what "lightly active" might mean in terms of actual activity. Given that A) Our TDEEs are truly just rough estimates based on simple mathematical equations that were based off of random samplings of populations that lived 20-50 years ago. and
people notoriously over estimate the calories they burn and underestimate the calories they consume. It makes a lot of sense to me that replies to posts complaining about NOT losing weight (or not losing enough) would illicit the response to lower ones activity level to the lowest setting and track upwards (ie enter the exercise you actually do). It's far easier to be more accurate that way.
As to why I only eat back roughly half my exercise calories? I'm not really trying to make a larger deficit occur, rather I'm acknowledging the human condition of underestimating what I eat. I'm far too lazy and my lifestyle a bit to chaotic to weigh/measure every morsel that I put in my mouth. I don't track the small trace amounts of oils I use in cooking and I tend to guesstimate exactly how much mayo I put on my sandwich or how much dressing I add to my salads. Plus I noticed that food databases tend to use much smaller fruit sizes then what I find at the store. Because of this, I simply assume I eat 200-400 cals more then I actually log. Half my exercise calories tends to fall in the 200-300 cal range, so it tends to even out my failings.Silentpadna wrote: »There is a large number of people on this site, who seem to be looking for ways to increase their deficit under the (false) impression of trying to "be safe". As a result they run the risk of getting undernourished, and hitting the wall because they can't sustain that.
There's a large number of people (not just this site) who want to try and lose the weight as fast as possible without spending hardly any time and energy learning basic health and nutrition knowledge. While I agree that these same people run the risk of constantly yoyo dieting and learning habits that are more detrimental to their overall long term health, I highly doubt a change to the activity level on MFP is going to fix that.
2 -
I agree with the vast response of people not understanding the difference between lightly active and sedentary. People think if they go to the gym after sitting for 8+ hours a day at an office job (plus commute) that they are lightly active, and then go ahead and log their exercise on top of that. Not the case. I work out for 2+ hours x day between at home dumbbell/band work/stretching, cardio and in-gym machine/barbell work and I still have my settings at sedentary because what do I do the rest of the day? Sit at my computer and do my job. If I were a construction worker or something like that it'd be more reasonable to have lightly active as a setting. People just need to grasp that concept. So when taking that into perspective it may be good for them to do stuff "just to be safe"0
-
I think this is a really helpful post! I have always kept mine at sedentary because I didn't really know if my activity level was high - I read somewhere that you're only "very active" if you're hitting 11k steps outside of purposeful exercise (please don't ask me to cite, it was years ago and just one of those weird things that stuck in my head). But I will now consider the merits of, particularly from about April - October when we are outside all the time, adjusting my activity level accordingly. For now, I eat back about 75% of purposeful exercise calories, and if my just activity calories hit over 400 or so (I work in a doctors office. Some days I don't sit for 10 hours. Somedays, it seems all our patients call each other and decide to all no show), then I'll eat another snack if I'm hungry.0
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »nosebag1212 wrote: »This is why I just think using the TDEE method is the best way as long as you have regular workouts and activity levels. MFP's method requires too much micromanaging and putting 'trust' into their workout database which for an over-zealous weight loss noob looking to have the fastest results possible might not be good. TDEE and tracking your weight for 3-4 weeks and THEN making adjustments takes all the guesswork out of it.
Highlighted the important part. I don't use TDEE for just that reason. I'm very inconsistent in what I do. I'm trying to get better, but summer's here and the time is right for dancing in the streets and what I do is weather dependent. Raining tomorrow so I'm not going to do much, but I ran to work today.
Awesome that you ran to work!
I don't use the TDEE method for the same reason. I don't see this kind of inconsistency as a bad thing, either.
1 -
I tend to advise "sedentary" because the vast majority of Americans ARE sedentary. Extremely sedentary. And people coming to MFP for the first time to lose significant amounts of weight are even MORE likely to be sedentary.
And overall, in my experience, people overestimate their activity levels, and the guidelines offered for defining your daily activity levels aren't very clear. Any many people intend to "work out" but not otherwise change their daily activities, which won't change their basic sedentism (and in fact, if a person is otherwise sedentary, 30 minutes in the gym is barely enough to move them to "lightly active."
For myself, my work day is so sedentary that even when I make the choice to walk to and from work, that activity barely lifts me into "lightly active." But over and over I see people saying, "Well, I walk the kids to school every morning so I'm active, right?" NO. You probably aren't.
In your examples? If you regularly get 12K steps a day, then you're not "sedentary" and shouldn't put yourself down as such. And all the guidelines I've read about defining daily activily levels would agree. You should set your basic setting to "active" and then not record any exercise.
On the other hand, if someone who had just joined said "okay, I have a desk job, but today I walked at lunch and went to the gym and its 4pm and I have 10k steps! And tomorrow I'm probably going to do the same thing!" I'd encourage that person to treat all of those steps as intentional exercise, because they're not part of their activities of daily life.
Your example also brings up the issue of double-counting. You got 10K steps in the course of your day, that's great! Call yourself active! But a lot of MFP noobs are wanting to record their exercise. They want to check off those goals and get credit for those gym visits. If any of the steps that make them "lightly active" happen in the gym, then they're double-counting those activities.3 -
I keep mine set to sedentary. Although I try to be active, there are days that's very difficult for me because of different health conditions. However, I try to count all the exercise I do get because it varies so much from day to day.0
-
I think you're conflating a couple pieces of advice.
1. Set as sedentary (Check)
2. use a tracker (check)
3. eat half of activity calories--I think this is where the Communication breaks down. If you're tracking non-purposeful activity(lifestyle calories) you should eat all of those. However, for purposeful activities, different calculations for me(230 lb 42 year old man) running 3 miles vary from 300ish to 800ish calories. If you're using a calculator that overestimates... then you should halve those calories. If you're using a calculator that underestimates, then by all means eat all of them.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »3. eat half of activity calories--I think this is where the Communication breaks down. If you're tracking non-purposeful activity(lifestyle calories) you should eat all of those. However, for purposeful activities, different calculations for me(230 lb 42 year old man) running 3 miles vary from 300ish to 800ish calories. If you're using a calculator that overestimates... then you should halve those calories. If you're using a calculator that underestimates, then by all means eat all of them.
I appreciate your points. However, I am wary of those who automatically and arbitrarily choose to eat half "just to be safe". My original post has little to do with those who understand how this all really works, but more toward those who choose to always "be safe". In these cases "being safe" might actually be the opposite.
As I mention in the original post, an activity like walking can be both (actually either) purposeful exercise or regular activity. In the example I used, it could be counted as either. I choose, for example to walk everywhere I can on the campus that I work, which is purposeful. It is also regular activity. So I set my activity accordingly. I don't then split the difference in MFP's initial settings between sedentary and active "just to be safe". If you don't necessarily trust your tracker numbers, why not just trust MFP's estimate with activity level?
3 -
nosebag1212 wrote: »This is why I just think using the TDEE method is the best way as long as you have regular workouts and activity levels. MFP's method requires too much micromanaging and putting 'trust' into their workout database which for an over-zealous weight loss noob looking to have the fastest results possible might not be good. TDEE and tracking your weight for 3-4 weeks and THEN making adjustments takes all the guesswork out of it.
Given the large number of people using either a fitness tracker, heart rate monitor, other app (such as MapMyWalk) or exercise machine estimates, I'm not sure it's reasonable to put MFP's exercise database at the heart of the problem.
No matter how you estimate, tracking your weight for 3-4 weeks (maybe longer if a premenopausal woman) then adjusting is the way to go. On that we agree.
I'm truly sedentary outside of intentional exercise, and have to put my activity at "active" (not just "lightly active") to get MFP to give me anything even remotely close to an accurate calorie goal (even "active" is a little low). These settings - any of them - are not gospel. There's plenty of individual variation, from many sources.
Also, "the fastest results possible" may not be all that great (healthful) a plan, regardless of how that "noob" (hate the term!) executes that plan.3 -
Ok, so I have read this whole thread and I am still confused. I still don't understand the "eating" back your exercise thing. If you are trying to have a deficit, how else would you get it? Seriously I'm not being a smart-alec, I just don't get how I'm supposed to use the numbers MFP gives me.
First let me give you my facts...
I have been Working at getting healthier for 3 month and lost about 24 pounds (initially I was doing more than 2 pounds a week but after researching about lean tissue and sagging skin, I slowed down so that only about 6 pounds were from this past month).
My "normal" activity can range anywhere from 1200 steps to 15000 steps - some days I am a full time student at my PC all day and others I am a maniac mom on the run).
My exercise is as follows (I am religious with my schedule):
Crossfit for between 45 and 60 minutes Monday, Wednesday & Friday.
Crossfit and weight training with personal trainer for 60 minutes Tuesday & Thursday.
Walk/Run between 2 and 3.5 miles Tuesday, Thursday & Saturday (when I say walk run, I mostly walk but at a pace that is just shy being out of breath - heart-rate up in the mid to high 140's. keep in mind I'm so short my run is not much faster than my walk).
So, my MFP settings are:
Age/sex: 45 Female
Current weight 195.3
Height: 4ft. 11in.
Goal weight: 140
Weekly Goal: lose 1lb per week
Activity level: Lightly Active
This was yesterday (typical day for exercise cals is between 400 & 700)
Goal 1660 - food 1574 + exercise 674 = 760 remaining (so am I not really supposed to have the 760 remaining? was I supposed to eat those too?
1- do I have my settings set right?
2- am I supposed to eat the 760 calories I had remaining? (I would be so FULL!)
3- am I doing anything right? (I mean, I know I've lost weight but seriously I NEVER exercised before starting).
0 -
@mrstrod1 You have a calorie deficit before exercise is factored in. You can lose weight with no exercise whatsoever, a lot of people do. When you exercise, you make a bigger deficit, and too much of a good thing isn't always better - that's the kind of thinking that got a lot of us into this in the first place.2
-
InkAndApples wrote: »I'm definitely one of the people who insists on sedantary (but eating all exercise calories back and tracking steps) but that's because my activity level varies so wildly (on Sunday I did 600 steps, nope, not kidding; today I hit 10K by lunch time) - I can't think of a better method that doesn't risk wildly over or under estimating my exercise calories.
I've never understood the "eat back 50%" thing. Does that number actually come from somewhere? Surely you just pick a course of action, stick with it for a month or two and then adjust based on your rate of loss? I know that for me I've found sedantary settings, eating back all calories given and logging all steps/exercise has me losing exactly on schedule.
This is exactly why I do it. My activity levels vary wildly as do my types of exercise routines. Setting to sedentary, logging exercises, and tracking steps works best for me to stay sane.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions