Exercise calories / eating back

brockhampton

So my first post was about how I feel like I've plateaued, and I've also struggled with some daily lightheadedness (my low blood pressure doesn't help) since starting counting my calories on MFP. I maintained my 1200-1300 calories a day intake but laid off exercise (except yoga) for 3 days and my weight suddenly dropped. Since restarting my exercises yesterday, walking on the treadmill at 4.3mi/h for an hour felt like a breeze compared to the last time I did it. After lurking around the forums a bit more, I realized that I haven't been eating my exercise calories back and probably should.

My question is: How many calories am I actually burning? And how many % of that should I eat back?
These are my exercises:
1. Treadmill walking at 7km/h (4.3mi/h) at 0.5 incline for 60 min, 1.0 incline for 20 min, and 1.5 incline for 20 min
2. Booty/thigh exercises (squats + jumping squats for 5 min, bodyweight glute bridges + fire hydrants + donkey kicks + outer leg raises + inner leg raises for 25 min)
3. Hatha yoga for 60 min (on walking days) / 90 min (on butt days)

I've read about people eating back 25-50% of their burnt calories based on MFP calculations, I've also read about calculating burnt calories from heart rate (mine is abnormally high, averaging 170 a min when walking), but there's so much contradictory information that I don't know which one I should use?

My height: 5'4
My weight: 127.5lbs

goldthistime

I would use the calorie burn estimate from the treadmill, or if you don't get one, look for the closest entry you can find in the database for those 100 minutes. For the leg/glute work I'd enter it as strength training. I don't do yoga but I'm sure there are entries in the database for it.

I'm maintaining now, but I liked the 50% rule, with lots of flexibility, for eating back exercise calories. By flexibility, I mean if I was starving, I'd eat back more, up to 100%.

cheryldumais

I generally eat around 50% of my exercise calories back. I use a Garmin device but allow MFP to calculate the calories as the Garmin numbers are higher. I am losing at the rate MFP said I would.

kgirlhart

The best thing would be to pick a percentage of the exercise calories and eat that for about 4 weeks. If you are losing faster than your expected rate then you know you can eat back more. If you are losing slower then you should eat back less. How much weight are you trying to lose? You are at a really good weight for your height already. You really shouldn't be aiming for more than .5 loss per week.

bwogilvie

A good rule of thumb for calculating walking calories on flat terrain (for those of us who use US/imperial units) is 0.5 calories per pound of body weight per mile. So at your weight, that would be about 64 calories per mile.

brockhampton

goldthistime wrote: »

I'm maintaining now, but I liked the 50% rule, with lots of flexibility, for eating back exercise calories. By flexibility, I mean if I was starving, I'd eat back more, up to 100%.

cheryldumais wrote: »

I generally eat around 50% of my exercise calories back. I use a Garmin device but allow MFP to calculate the calories as the Garmin numbers are higher. I am losing at the rate MFP said I would.

Thank you! It's super helpful to know that by eating 50% of your MFP-calculated exercise calories back, you've been able to see the progress that you've set. (:

bwogilvie wrote: »

A good rule of thumb for calculating walking calories on flat terrain (for those of us who use US/imperial units) is 0.5 calories per pound of body weight per mile. So at your weight, that would be about 64 calories per mile.

This is a very handy rule of thumb - would you advise that I eat back half or all of those calories (my average walk including warm up and cool down is around 4.5 miles at an average incline of 1.0)?

kgirlhart wrote: »

The best thing would be to pick a percentage of the exercise calories and eat that for about 4 weeks. If you are losing faster than your expected rate then you know you can eat back more. If you are losing slower then you should eat back less. How much weight are you trying to lose? You are at a really good weight for your height already. You really shouldn't be aiming for more than .5 loss per week.

Great, I plan on using MFP's suggested calories and eating back 50% as others have suggested. Will re-evaluate in 4 weeks. My tentative goal weight is 120lbs (I'm Asian and have a small frame) but I'm not 100% set on it yet as I don't want to look too skinny. If I find my ribs looking too visible at any point, I'd probably just start maintaining and toning. I'm hoping to lose 1lb a week so I can start focusing on building my glutes before I turn 24 at the start of October.

NorthCascades

kgirlhart wrote: »

The best thing would be to pick a percentage of the exercise calories and eat that for about 4 weeks. If you are losing faster than your expected rate then you know you can eat back more. If you are losing slower then you should eat back less.

This.

If you want the best accuracy possible, track your three types of exercise separately. You can probably eat 100% of your walking calories (because those can be estimated reliably) but less for the other types of exercise you do.

stanmann571

NorthCascades wrote: »

kgirlhart wrote: »

The best thing would be to pick a percentage of the exercise calories and eat that for about 4 weeks. If you are losing faster than your expected rate then you know you can eat back more. If you are losing slower then you should eat back less.

This.

If you want the best accuracy possible, track your three types of exercise separately. You can probably eat 100% of your walking calories (because those can be estimated reliably) but less for the other types of exercise you do.

This!!

And at 4.3 mph, you're going to be burning a little bit more than what the calculators estimate because you're in one of those gap spaces where burn is funny with walking.

NorthCascades

I have special pedals on my bike that measure the energy I put into the bike. They were very expensive and they're for fitness, but a side effect of how they work (measuring energy use) is that they're the most accurate way to determine calorie use on a bike, accurate to 95% in the worst cases. I eat all these calories back and have lost 70 pounds this way.

On the other hand, I ski cross country in the winter and don't have anything better than a heart rate monitor to guess how many calories I burned. HRMs aren't very reliable and they overestimate, so I take these as generous estimates and do not eat all of them.

It's not really about some special percentage, it's the accuracy of the numbers you use.

ashliedelgado

I eat 50% on average, more if I am still starving. That usually only happens the week before TOM, I eat about 100% that week, sometimes all the way up to maintenance.

brockhampton

stanmann571 wrote: »

And at 4.3 mph, you're going to be burning a little bit more than what the calculators estimate because you're in one of those gap spaces where burn is funny with walking.

NorthCascades wrote: »

It's not really about some special percentage, it's the accuracy of the numbers you use.

Oh lawd I'm so confused rn. The problem is that I don't have any tracking devices, much less an accurate one, so I don't really even have a semi-reliable number to start with except for those provided on MFP or other similar websites. So essentially if I use @bwogilvie 's formula without taking into account the negligible incline, it comes to 287 calories burnt per walking sesh, I assume you suggest I count 100% of those calories instead of 50%?

Also, @stanmann571 do you mind elaborating more on the why and how the burn becomes different at 4.3mph and over? Simply curious. Thanks!

stanmann571

bodwomon wrote: »

stanmann571 wrote: »

And at 4.3 mph, you're going to be burning a little bit more than what the calculators estimate because you're in one of those gap spaces where burn is funny with walking.

NorthCascades wrote: »

It's not really about some special percentage, it's the accuracy of the numbers you use.

Oh lawd I'm so confused rn. The problem is that I don't have any tracking devices, much less an accurate one, so I don't really even have a semi-reliable number to start with except for those provided on MFP or other similar websites. So essentially if I use @bwogilvie 's formula without taking into account the negligible incline, it comes to 287 calories burnt per walking sesh, I assume you suggest I count 100% of those calories instead of 50%?

Also, @stanmann571 do you mind elaborating more on the why and how the burn becomes different at 4.3mph and over? Simply curious. Thanks!

http://www.runnersworld.com/peak-performance/running-v-walking-how-many-calories-will-you-burn

This article elaborates and links the pertinent studies, but basically under 4 mph, you burn around .33 calories per pound per mile. over 5 mph the calorie burn is close to or greater than running. Between 4 and 5 mph its more than .33 but less than .7.

bwogilvie

bodwomon wrote: »

Oh lawd I'm so confused rn. The problem is that I don't have any tracking devices, much less an accurate one, so I don't really even have a semi-reliable number to start with except for those provided on MFP or other similar websites. So essentially if I use @bwogilvie 's formula without taking into account the negligible incline, it comes to 287 calories burnt per walking sesh, I assume you suggest I count 100% of those calories instead of 50%?

If you're positive that you're logging food accurately, then it makes sense to log 100% of walking calories. The numbers are all estimates, but that one is pretty reliable. I have no idea about the other activities. Whatever you decide to do, the important thing is to monitor your progress. If you track for a month and you're losing weight at your desired rate, then it's working; if you're losing more slowly than you want, try logging fewer exercise calories.