Now I'm confused?

TrishSeren

I had a discussion with someone recently who said if you enter in that you'll be working out 3 x a week in your settings then you shouldn't log any exercise? She said, "you'll be double-counting and that'll mess up your calorie count and weight loss if eating in a deficit."

Is this correct?

Aaron_K123

TrishSeren wrote: »

I had a discussion with someone recently who said if you enter in that you'll be working out 3 x a week in your settings then you shouldn't log any exercise? She said, "you'll be double-counting and that'll mess up your calorie count and weight loss if eating in a deficit."

Is this correct?

Could you rephrase your question, it is difficult to understand what you are asking as it is currently written.

I don't know what "that" is when you say enter in "that" and I don't know what is meant by working out 3 x a week in your settings as I don't recall MFP having a setting for how often you work out.

TrishSeren

When you complete your goal settings it asks "How many times a week do you plan on exercising?" This person is saying if you fill out that information PLUS log workouts, you'll be doubling up.

CyberTone

TrishSeren wrote: »

I had a discussion with someone recently who said if you enter in that you'll be working out 3 x a week in your settings then you shouldn't log any exercise? She said, "you'll be double-counting and that'll mess up your calorie count and weight loss if eating in a deficit."

Is this correct?

She is totally incorrect.

When you set your daily goals, MFP will ask about how many times per week you plan to exercise. The only thing that does is to provide an aspirational target to hit.

You are expected to log any purposeful exercise above your chosen MFP Activity Level.

​Please see this article, and search for answers to Frequently Asked Questions and other helpful articles, on the MFP Help/FAQ pages...

https://myfitnesspal.desk.com/customer/en/portal/articles/410332-how-does-myfitnesspal-calculate-my-initial-goals-

janejellyroll

That question (how many times a week do you plan to work out) doesn't factor into your calorie goal. So logging your workouts won't result in double-counting.

Your friend is not correct.

TrishSeren

Thanks everyone! I was very confused for a moment!

brendanwhite84

I don't really place a lot of stock in those estimates for the Activity Level - working out 3 times a week could mean doing 10 minutes of light aerobics or 90 minutes of intense cycling depending on who you ask.

I walk 6 miles a day on average and have a (empirically measured) fast metabolism, so I use Very Active and also log my exercise, eating back 100% of my exercise calories. My weight loss and gain while sticking to this practice has stuck pretty close to the projections.

janejellyroll

brendanwhite84 wrote: »

I don't really place a lot of stock in those estimates for the Activity Level - working out 3 times a week could mean doing 10 minutes of light aerobics or 90 minutes of intense cycling depending on who you ask.

I walk 6 miles a day on average and have a (empirically measured) fast metabolism, so I use Very Active and also log my exercise, eating back 100% of my exercise calories. My weight loss and gain while sticking to this practice has stuck pretty close to the projections.

The estimates for the activity level do not include whatever you enter for your planned amount of workouts per week.

MFP is set up so that your activity level is based on your non-exercise activity. Users then choose specific database entries from the database when they log exercise (or they get activity adjustments from synced activity tracking devices). Either way, the user entry for how many times they plan to work out per week is irrelevant when it comes to determining calorie goals.

brendanwhite84

janejellyroll wrote: »

brendanwhite84 wrote: »

I don't really place a lot of stock in those estimates for the Activity Level - working out 3 times a week could mean doing 10 minutes of light aerobics or 90 minutes of intense cycling depending on who you ask.

I walk 6 miles a day on average and have a (empirically measured) fast metabolism, so I use Very Active and also log my exercise, eating back 100% of my exercise calories. My weight loss and gain while sticking to this practice has stuck pretty close to the projections.

The estimates for the activity level do not include whatever you enter for your planned amount of workouts per week.

MFP is set up so that your activity level is based on your non-exercise activity. Users then choose specific database entries from the database when they log exercise (or they get activity adjustments from synced activity tracking devices). Either way, the user entry for how many times they plan to work out per week is irrelevant when it comes to determining calorie goals.

Ah, you know what, I was thinking of the Mifflin-St. Jeor activity factor - which includes exercise. I think MFP might have indicated as such at one point but that might be me remembering wrong.

CyberTone

brendanwhite84 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

brendanwhite84 wrote: »

I don't really place a lot of stock in those estimates for the Activity Level - working out 3 times a week could mean doing 10 minutes of light aerobics or 90 minutes of intense cycling depending on who you ask.

I walk 6 miles a day on average and have a (empirically measured) fast metabolism, so I use Very Active and also log my exercise, eating back 100% of my exercise calories. My weight loss and gain while sticking to this practice has stuck pretty close to the projections.

The estimates for the activity level do not include whatever you enter for your planned amount of workouts per week.

MFP is set up so that your activity level is based on your non-exercise activity. Users then choose specific database entries from the database when they log exercise (or they get activity adjustments from synced activity tracking devices). Either way, the user entry for how many times they plan to work out per week is irrelevant when it comes to determining calorie goals.

Ah, you know what, I was thinking of the Mifflin-St. Jeor activity factor - which includes exercise. I think MFP might have indicated as such at one point but that might be me remembering wrong.

The Mifflin-St. Jeor and Harris-Benedict equations are used to estimate BMR (basal metabolic rate). That specifically excludes both NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenisis) and EAT (exercise activity thermogenises). Some people separate TEF (thermic effect of food) which is minimal from NEAT, but MFP includes TEF in its Activity Level estimate.

MFP uses the Activity Level as a multiplier of a person's BMR to account for NEAT (and TEF). Then the user is supposed to log exercise to account for EAT separately.

Reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate

brendanwhite84

CyberTone wrote: »

brendanwhite84 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

brendanwhite84 wrote: »

I don't really place a lot of stock in those estimates for the Activity Level - working out 3 times a week could mean doing 10 minutes of light aerobics or 90 minutes of intense cycling depending on who you ask.

I walk 6 miles a day on average and have a (empirically measured) fast metabolism, so I use Very Active and also log my exercise, eating back 100% of my exercise calories. My weight loss and gain while sticking to this practice has stuck pretty close to the projections.

The estimates for the activity level do not include whatever you enter for your planned amount of workouts per week.

MFP is set up so that your activity level is based on your non-exercise activity. Users then choose specific database entries from the database when they log exercise (or they get activity adjustments from synced activity tracking devices). Either way, the user entry for how many times they plan to work out per week is irrelevant when it comes to determining calorie goals.

Ah, you know what, I was thinking of the Mifflin-St. Jeor activity factor - which includes exercise. I think MFP might have indicated as such at one point but that might be me remembering wrong.

The Mifflin-St. Jeor and Harris-Benedict equations are used to estimate BMR (basal metabolic rate). That specifically excludes both NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenisis) and EAT (exercise activity thermogenises). Some people separate TEF (thermic effect of food) which is minimal from NEAT, but MFP includes TEF in its Activity Level estimate.

MFP uses the Activity Level as a multiplier of a person's BMR to account for NEAT (and TEF). Then the user is supposed to log exercise to account for EAT separately.

Reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate

Hmm - I don't doubt you're right but I was under the impression that the EAT / activity factor was linked to Mifflin-St. Jeor's equation. To the best of your knowledge is the same multiplying value used for Harris-Benedict EAT calculation as well? I'm curious where that multiplier was established in scientific literature.

Anyway, that's neither here nor there. Thanks for the info either way.

CyberTone

brendanwhite84 wrote: »

CyberTone wrote: »

brendanwhite84 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

brendanwhite84 wrote: »

I don't really place a lot of stock in those estimates for the Activity Level - working out 3 times a week could mean doing 10 minutes of light aerobics or 90 minutes of intense cycling depending on who you ask.

I walk 6 miles a day on average and have a (empirically measured) fast metabolism, so I use Very Active and also log my exercise, eating back 100% of my exercise calories. My weight loss and gain while sticking to this practice has stuck pretty close to the projections.

The estimates for the activity level do not include whatever you enter for your planned amount of workouts per week.

MFP is set up so that your activity level is based on your non-exercise activity. Users then choose specific database entries from the database when they log exercise (or they get activity adjustments from synced activity tracking devices). Either way, the user entry for how many times they plan to work out per week is irrelevant when it comes to determining calorie goals.

Ah, you know what, I was thinking of the Mifflin-St. Jeor activity factor - which includes exercise. I think MFP might have indicated as such at one point but that might be me remembering wrong.

The Mifflin-St. Jeor and Harris-Benedict equations are used to estimate BMR (basal metabolic rate). That specifically excludes both NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenisis) and EAT (exercise activity thermogenises). Some people separate TEF (thermic effect of food) which is minimal from NEAT, but MFP includes TEF in its Activity Level estimate.

MFP uses the Activity Level as a multiplier of a person's BMR to account for NEAT (and TEF). Then the user is supposed to log exercise to account for EAT separately.

Reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate

Hmm - I don't doubt you're right but I was under the impression that the EAT / activity factor was linked to Mifflin-St. Jeor's equation. To the best of your knowledge is the same multiplying value used for Harris-Benedict EAT calculation as well? I'm curious where that multiplier was established in scientific literature.

Anyway, that's neither here nor there. Thanks for the info either way.

In a roundabout way the BMR equations are used. Once you have a BMR estimate using one of the equations, the multiplication factor for EAT (and technically for individual NEAT activities, which can be estimated but is rarely done for individual NEAT activities) is called the metabolic equivalent of tasks (METs). METs for different activities are compiled online in the Compendium of Physical Activities.

In general, MFP uses the METs multiplication factors from the Compendium for its Exercise Database estimates for individual exercises.

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent

https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/