Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Eating back your gym calories, yes or no?
Replies
-
I have always eaten my exercise calories back, otherwise I may have become one of those mean MFP posters.
Early on I played with all my numbers and worked out 200cals an hour was a good average. It has worked for about 8 years.
( not stats oriented enough to have a running Excel sheet. Tried it- abandoned within a month
)
Cheers, h.5 -
hollyshealthylife wrote: »No, and I don't record my exercise in MFP as the estimates are so off-base. 105 cals burned for 20 minutes of walking? Suuuure.... At this point, I'm focused on making sure I get close to my goal protein intake. As my weight loss is fairly consistent/average week to week, and I feel relatively capable/well-rested and with enough energy day to day, this works for me now. If I do find that my vigourous workout schedule has me feeling crushed, I will certainly modify my plan.
FWIW, I am a morbidly obese late 30s female focusing on building muscle and cardiovascular, not a top athlete. Obviously, as my body composition changes, my needs will change!
That actually sounds quite accurate. The general rule for walking is that a mile burns about 100 calories for an average sized person (with obvious variations for size and elevation) I could easily walk a mile in 20 minutes.6 -
I eat the majority of them back. I have heard too many stories of not eating enough making your metabolism run slower and this scares me into eating enough so my body is burning at maximum capacity. it seems to work fine for me, 14lbs down in less than 3 months.2
-
hollyshealthylife wrote: »No, and I don't record my exercise in MFP as the estimates are so off-base. 105 cals burned for 20 minutes of walking? Suuuure.... At this point, I'm focused on making sure I get close to my goal protein intake. As my weight loss is fairly consistent/average week to week, and I feel relatively capable/well-rested and with enough energy day to day, this works for me now. If I do find that my vigourous workout schedule has me feeling crushed, I will certainly modify my plan.
FWIW, I am a morbidly obese late 30s female focusing on building muscle and cardiovascular, not a top athlete. Obviously, as my body composition changes, my needs will change!
That actually sounds quite accurate. The general rule for walking is that a mile burns about 100 calories for an average sized person (with obvious variations for size and elevation) I could easily walk a mile in 20 minutes.
Well, 0.3*body weight in lbs per mile.
Personally I'll burn 50 cals per mile walking, 100 per mile running. Asking someone twice my weight, hence obese then a mile in 20 minutes isn't outlandish.
I guess my material point is, what would suggest that 100 cals isn't reasonable?2 -
I am a very very big lady trying to get smaller. I started recently using MFP for the that exact reason. Every app I've used seem to overexagerate my BMR and my burnt calories (MMW seems to do that to, I mean 285 cals for a lazy groccery 30 mins run? so propably gonna delete it). I kept my gym membership till end of May and was constantly scratching down calories in and out and for some periods even had an after workout protein shake that my trainer swore would make my progress faster but my progress seemed even slower than what it was. I don't trust the treadmill counter, the bike counter, the elliptic counter, practically have not any idea what my outs are, can only make an educated guess. I understand the idea that calories burnt on a 30 min fast pace in the treadmill should be different in me and a 60 or 70 or even 100 kg person, due to the diference in the effort needed for me and that person to do the same excersise, but the numbers seem waayy off. So I've set MFP to not adjust cals on excersise days and starting next week, will see how things will go.
P.S. It seems I lost more in those 3 months I've been off the gym and not eating them back than on any 3 months period on the gym, maybe eating back really cancels your progress?2 -
valitsakouel wrote: »maybe eating back really cancels your progress?
Not at all, if you measure accurately. A lot of people might be hungrier and tend to eat more or think "jeez, I must have burned SO MANY calories as the workout felt tough" and eat back too much." On the other hand, if we are talking short term water weigh can mask losses when you first start working out.
I ate exercise calories throughout my weight loss and lost at or above the MFP predicted rate.I am a very very big lady trying to get smaller. I started recently using MFP for the that exact reason. Every app I've used seem to overexagerate my BMR and my burnt calories (MMW seems to do that to, I mean 285 cals for a lazy groccery 30 mins run? so propably gonna delete it).
If you are quite heavy, MFP might overestimate your BMR (unless you use the formula that takes body fat into account the calculators do overestimate BMR for people with high fat percentages). If you are at sedentary and aiming for 2 lb/week anyway (which seems to be common), it likely evens out, though. When I started (and had lots to lose, but had already been dieting and lost the initial big water drop) MFP claimed I'd lose 1.8 lb/week at 1200 and I consistently lost more than 2 at 1250 WITH exercise calories eaten back (not saying you should aim for over 2, and that didn't last after I'd lost my first 20 or so).
If you are talking about an actual 3 mile run, though, 285 does not seem high. A 150 lb person will burn about 300 on a 3 mile run. If you mean a walk, it's lower (but if you are actually quite heavy 285 for that length walk is possible). That said, I personally would not log back calories from daily walking. I do quite a bit more than 3 miles just commuting and on errands and such during my day and don't log it as exercise (a purposeful walk to exercise I might if I did not have a Fitbit). If I regularly hit 10,000 steps or some such without intentional exercise I'd make sure I was in as lightly active vs. sedentary, though.
That calories don't seem accurate isn't a reason not to eat any of them, you can try eating back 50% to start and then adjust based on results. Being active (as active as reasonably possible given current state of fitness, don't burn yourself out) IS independently good for health.4 -
Calorie estimations are based upon long term steady state cardio. Most of the original test data evolved from observing olympic athletes, military, and other elite level athletes. The closer you are to these test subjects, average height, average weight, etc. the more accurate your results will be. The further you are from the average, the greater the change of inaccurate results.
Don't overthink this. This is a long term process, so don't get hung up over an aberrant short term data point. What matters is the overall trend on your weight (or whatever metric you're tracking). If this is trending in the right direction, you're doing it right.3 -
I eat more calories on training days and less on rest days ... basically I eat more to fuel my body on training days2
-
I don't usually eat back all of them, unless I'm really hungry or having a bad day. Sometimes I'll eat back 100-200 (I usually burn 400-500 in the gym). Everyone's different but I've been losing weight pretty steadily so what I'm doing works for me
2 -
I'll specifically eat back but only if I burn in large chunks. My normal weekday workouts are only about 30 minutes (250 calories) so I don't usually eat those. My 1-hour weekend run burns something like 750 and I'll gladly scarf that down.
I should also mention that as a 6'2" male at close to 200 pounds, I have plenty of calories to work with even before considering exercise.1 -
valitsakouel wrote: »I am a very very big lady trying to get smaller. I started recently using MFP for the that exact reason. Every app I've used seem to overexagerate my BMR and my burnt calories (MMW seems to do that to, I mean 285 cals for a lazy groccery 30 mins run? so propably gonna delete it). I kept my gym membership till end of May and was constantly scratching down calories in and out and for some periods even had an after workout protein shake that my trainer swore would make my progress faster but my progress seemed even slower than what it was. I don't trust the treadmill counter, the bike counter, the elliptic counter, practically have not any idea what my outs are, can only make an educated guess. I understand the idea that calories burnt on a 30 min fast pace in the treadmill should be different in me and a 60 or 70 or even 100 kg person, due to the diference in the effort needed for me and that person to do the same excersise, but the numbers seem waayy off. So I've set MFP to not adjust cals on excersise days and starting next week, will see how things will go.
P.S. It seems I lost more in those 3 months I've been off the gym and not eating them back than on any 3 months period on the gym, maybe eating back really cancels your progress?
Why would you even log grocery shopping as exercise? Am I missing something here? Why wouldn't you consider that as part of your normal daily activity level?5 -
Veganvibesss wrote: »Personally I don't ever eat them back unless I don't feel to great, I know alot of people say you should but alot say you shouldn't so how about you guys? What's your opinion?
Most people on MFP suggest eating back half of those calories.1 -
I have genuinely no idea on the value of a calorie in terms of effort exerted. I have no idea how to begin accounting for calories out but really wouldn't enjoy eating nothing extra ever. I just to my best to underestimate, probably still don't.0
-
I think that people assume a lot. Now, not saying that in a confrontational or aggressive manner. Just what I find, in my experience.
The calories and macro break-downs that we all view when we buy our food (I look at the labels religiously) are subject to error. Who knows to what extent. 10%, 20%. Everything that I read on that topic suggests somewhere in that range (10% to 20%). So, those 200 calories that you are getting from the 1/4 cup of Sunflower Seeds. Is that really 200 calories? Maybe not! Maybe it is 240 calories. Or, somewhere in between.
Point is.....we assume all of the stuff on the label to be 100% accurate. It is not likely 100% accurate.
I tend to look at 'counting calories' and 'counting macros' on a weekly-basis. Not a daily-basis. Yes, I try to hit my numbers each and every day. I try to stay within 5% of the caloric intake. I try to stay within 10% of each macro. But, for me, looking at it from the perspective of one week just works better than looking at it from the perspective of each day. But, that is just me....
And, the machines at the gym - no matter what gym, they all use 'similar' machines - are a best estimate with respect to calories burned. At best.
So, it is very easy to think that you are eating such and such calories each day - and actually be eating more - and to think that you are burning this amount of calories when on the tread mill (or whatever 'cardio' exercise equipment you are using) when you are actually burning significantly fewer. You couple those two and you find yourself in a caloric surplus.....not the deficit that you thought.
So, is there a better solution? Maybe!
The great thing....we are all playing on the same field, right?
So, if we are 'eating some of our cardio | exercise calories back' we are essentially pouring salt on an open wound. Potentially, anyway.3 -
CWShultz27105 wrote: »I think that people assume a lot. Now, not saying that in a confrontational or aggressive manner. Just what I find, in my experience.
The calories and macro break-downs that we all view when we buy our food (I look at the labels religiously) are subject to error. Who knows to what extent. 10%, 20%. Everything that I read on that topic suggests somewhere in that range (10% to 20%). So, those 200 calories that you are getting from the 1/4 cup of Sunflower Seeds. Is that really 200 calories? Maybe not! Maybe it is 240 calories. Or, somewhere in between.
Point is.....we assume all of the stuff on the label to be 100% accurate. It is not likely 100% accurate.
I tend to look at 'counting calories' and 'counting macros' on a weekly-basis. Not a daily-basis. Yes, I try to hit my numbers each and every day. I try to stay within 5% of the caloric intake. I try to stay within 10% of each macro. But, for me, looking at it from the perspective of one week just works better than looking at it from the perspective of each day. But, that is just me....
And, the machines at the gym - no matter what gym, they all use 'similar' machines - are a best estimate with respect to calories burned. At best.
So, it is very easy to think that you are eating such and such calories each day - and actually be eating more - and to think that you are burning this amount of calories when on the tread mill (or whatever 'cardio' exercise equipment you are using) when you are actually burning significantly fewer. You couple those two and you find yourself in a caloric surplus.....not the deficit that you thought.
So, is there a better solution? Maybe!
The great thing....we are all playing on the same field, right?
So, if we are 'eating some of our cardio | exercise calories back' we are essentially pouring salt on an open wound. Potentially, anyway.
So, from a health risk management standpoint, it's better to risk undernourishment and underfueling, rather than risk losing too slowly or not at all?
Two thoughts, both JMO:- This is not an a "one size fits all" decision. If someone's planned eating deficit is high, and their exercise frequent/lengthy/heavy, not eating back any exercise calories leaves them them at greater risk of underfueling. If someone's planned eating deficit is small (slow loss rate), and their exercise quite calorically modest, the risks tip more toward the chance of slow/no loss. Would you argue that both are best served by the strategy of eating back no exercise calories?
NOTE: I think either person should assess results after a month to 6 weeks - sooner if notable problems clearly arise - and adjust their strategy and goals based on results. - Yes, food labels are legally permitted to be off by 20%, which is large; and exercise machines' calorie burn estimates are often crazy high. In most cases, in a practical sense, this really doesn't matter all that much.
What?!? And why?
First, most people tend to repeat similar foods and similar exercises. Therefore, over time, their CI and CO estimates are inaccurate, but tend to be consistent. If they sensibly review and adjust their strategy after a month or so, that consistency is enough to be the basis for success.
Second, errors on the eating side from labeling inaccuracies can go in either direction, high or low. Therefore, there's some tendency for those to cancel each other out, dampening magnitude of net error - particularly if the person is managing measurement accuracy as much as possible by weighing foods, thus reducing caloric variation from portion size errors.
The other factors, like forgetting to log things or picking lowball estimates from the database, are within the person's control - conscientiousness and self-honesty go a long way. I regularly see folks in the forum on "help I'm not losing" threads review open diaries and point these out, besides.
On the exercise side, the standard advice is to eat back 50%, and reassess after a month or so. Only in the case of someone with something like an atypically low NEAT or very low deficit is the exercise estimate likely to be so far off at 50% that it conspires with CI errors to result in no loss, let alone gain.
Can it happen? Sure. And if they get frustrated and quit, that's a horrible outcome. But if they recognize the potential for these things to happen, and adjust based on results (seeking help in the forums when needed, too), they're likely to do fine in the long term.
5 - This is not an a "one size fits all" decision. If someone's planned eating deficit is high, and their exercise frequent/lengthy/heavy, not eating back any exercise calories leaves them them at greater risk of underfueling. If someone's planned eating deficit is small (slow loss rate), and their exercise quite calorically modest, the risks tip more toward the chance of slow/no loss. Would you argue that both are best served by the strategy of eating back no exercise calories?
-
Good evening, AnnPT77.....
Thank you for adding to my contribution. Always appreciate someone commenting on what I contribute to the conversation. Here are some thoughts on your comments...
The "pouring salt on an open wound" comment.....Honestly, I have never heard of the concept of eating back a portion of your exercise / cardio calories. That must be my ignorance. But, to answer your question - no, I would prefer not to underfuel. There are a lot of issues associated with that. Having horrible workouts, to name just one, is not fun. Having no energy, to name another, is less than desirable.
And I have stated this in numerous other posts, just did not include it here. There is ALWAYS a need to re-assess. I use the four to six week schedule for changing the training routine. For the nutrition, I am constantly looking at that (via the 'weigh yourself every day of the week, at the same time of day and on the same scale and then take the weekly average'). I conveniently did not include that in this contribution. I will be more complete in the future.
And, agreed - there is never a "one-size-fits-all" solution. Everyone is different. Even people with the same stats....so, that group of 100 50yo males who are all 6'0" tall and who all weigh 212lbs and work out five or six times a week. Each guy in that group will very likely respond a little bit differently (maybe even a lot differently) to the same "input" and "output" as each of these guys would have different genetics and a different nutritional history. We use common concepts and formulas as a starting point and then adjust each depending on how that person responds.
Thank you very much, AnnPT77, for commenting on my contribution. Hopefully we have clarified some things and hopefully everyone has learned a little bit more!2 -
@CWShultz27105 we recommend eating back exercise calories because MFP does NOT include purposeful exercise in their goal calories when you input your info - as compared to a TDEE calculator that does include workout calories. One of the first questions I ask are you using MFP determined calories to guide your goals (or something else) - personally I use TDEE because I have a more regular workout schedule and its easier for me to plan2
-
@Deannalfisher - THANK YOU! The new guy (me!) is making a lot of mistakes in his first two days of posting! Not only from trying to get too much out there (and there have been one or two editing mistakes - to be honest) and including WAY TOO much information in my posts. So, going to s - l - o -w way the heck down.
I have NOT been using the MFP calculators. I have been using another one (the Harris-Benedict BMR Calculator from 1919 with the PAL).
I am SOOOOO grateful for you explaining that. I heard that last night for the first time and I have been thinking about it for a little bit. I was still trying to wrap my head around that concept. I was thinking that there had to be a logical explanation for that. I mean, some of the folks responding to my posts have thousands and thousands of posts....they would VERY LIKELY know better than I!
I am going to correct the two mistakes and be much more "professional" when I reply.
Thanks you, ma'am! Truly appreciate the insight.1 -
I promise MFP isn't a diabolical plot to make exercisers fat.
Even if their exercise database is inflated...6 -
Veganvibesss wrote: »Personally I don't ever eat them back unless I don't feel to great, I know alot of people say you should but alot say you shouldn't so how about you guys? What's your opinion?
I'm using MFP to track calories in and fitbit to track calories out (in the form of steps). My activity level is set on sedentary. In the beginning I didn't eat my exercise calories back because 1) I was getting 3000 - 4000 mostly incidental steps daily and 2) on 1200 calories I lose ounces a week, so whatever exercise I was getting when I took a walk or did a bike ride still had me losing no more than .5 lbs weekly. However, as my activity level increased, I found that I was having a harder time pushing myself mentally and physically even though my rate of loss was the same and had less energy in general. When I started eating back some of my exercise calories ( a third to a half depending on my perceived effort) I was surprised that my weight loss remained the same, probably because with more energy I was moving around more (like doing more work around the house). I've continued that pattern and continue to lose as expected (I currently consider myself in maintenance but would eventually like to lose a few more lbs). In my opinion, the key is experimenting with the your process for determining calories in and calories out and understanding how that works for you. If you are losing, maintaining or gaining at the rate expected you've found your balance.0 -
When I started with MFP I tried not to eat back my exercise calories, but as I lost weight and exercised more I felt I needed to eat more. Currently Im constantly looking for food, going way over calories on non exercise days. Trying to snack on fruits and nuts more than I needed to in the past in an attempt not to gain weight. It seemed to be an easy game till now. These last 8kgs are promising to be an uphill battle.0
-
So I used to use MFP years ago, and recently started back up again. My decision on eating back calories was (and is again), this; If I go to the gym and work out on a piece of equipment, I will record those calories and eat them back if I'm hungry.
I don't record the calories burned during weightlifting or my 3 mile round walk to the gym and back.
I do it this way because I don't have a HRM (although I should get one), so even if the gym equipment is off, I still have other calories burned I'm not eating back and no matter what I'm full, but in a deficit. I realize this is and very specific type of workout, but it's worked for me before and is working again.0 -
HRM has basically nothing to do with calories.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