Please help me understand this.
jenniferanderson3888
Posts: 53 Member
I just started working out 3 days a week cardio to start. I was so starving within an hour and pretty much looking forward to the next meal. It really reved me up. So what I don’t understand is if I’m eating back my exercise calories. What is the point of working out? I’m not being negative this is just a question. I wanted to not eat exercise calories but that is impossible. Will the hunger level drop as I become used to exercise?
0
Replies
-
jenniferanderson3888 wrote: »I just started working out 3 days a week cardio to start. I was so starving within an hour and pretty much looking forward to the next meal. It really reved me up. So what I don’t understand is if I’m eating back my exercise calories. What is the point of working out? I’m not being negative this is just a question. I wanted to not eat exercise calories but that is impossible. Will the hunger level drop as I become used to exercise?
MFP gives you a deficit before exercise, which is why you can eat them back.
6 -
The calorie goal MFP gives you already has a deficit built in without exercise.Theoretically, even with zero exercise, eating what MFP tells you to will still result in a loss. You don't want your deficit to be too aggressive and you need to properly fuel your activity so that's why you should eat back your exercise calories.3
-
The point of exercising is fitness.12
-
janejellyroll wrote: »The point of exercising is fitness.
this. fitness, getting stronger, general health, building muscles.
but strictly for weight loss it's not NEEDED. weight loss is calories in VS out. it can allow you to eat more, so adding 300 calories to your day may mean a fancy dessert or bread with your dinner. but yes it can increase hunger too.5 -
jenniferanderson3888 wrote: »I just started working out 3 days a week cardio to start. I was so starving within an hour and pretty much looking forward to the next meal. It really reved me up. So what I don’t understand is if I’m eating back my exercise calories. What is the point of working out? I’m not being negative this is just a question. I wanted to not eat exercise calories but that is impossible. Will the hunger level drop as I become used to exercise?
If you told MFP that you want to lose 1 lb per week, and MFP gave you a calorie goal of 1300 cals, that means that without exercise, you will average around 1 lb per week at 1300 cals. If you exercise you are burning more calories than MFP predicted, so if you don't eat the calories back, you will lose faster. And you're seeing one reason why faster isn't always better.
Plus, exercise isn't just for weight loss, there are a million reasons why working out and being more active are good for you. Fueling your exercise so you can have more energy, have a strong heart and lungs, be more flexible and strong, have a lower risk of pretty much every disease connected to lifestyle, and probably end up looking better than if you didn't sounds good to me
9 -
I workout so I can eat more. A lot depends on your individual goals, but a lot of time, the goal calories without exercise can be pretty low, and sometimes hard to hit or require a lot of sacrifice. Exercise gives you more calories, and allows you to eat more of what you enjoy while still hitting your goal.
Fitness and other health benefits are also a big part of the benefits. But working out has most definitely assisted my weight loss because it allows me to eat a lot more of the things I like than if I didn't do it, while still meeting my goals.2 -
Weight loss is 90% in the kitchen.
Cardio for heart health, hormone balancing, respiratory health, etc
Resistance training for strength, lean mass, etc
You need all 3 to be successful long term.
Eating back half exercise calories is what i usually do w great results. Most dont need to eat it back though, unless youre running 5-10 miles a day. Most exercise counters waaay over estimate how much you've burned.17 -
robthephotog wrote: »Weight loss is 90% in the kitchen.
Cardio for heart health, hormone balancing, respiratory health, etc
Resistance training for strength, lean mass, etc
You need all 3 to be successful long term.
Eating back half exercise calories is what i usually do w great results. Most dont need to eat it back though, unless youre running 5-10 miles a day. Most exercise counters waaay over estimate how much you've burned.
If you are using MFP goals, you should be eating back your exercise calories. That's how the site is designed. If you are using machine estimates, etc, then 50% may be a good target to try because sometimes they can be over inflated. They shouldn't be ignored completely though or else people are undereating their goals.7 -
robthephotog wrote: »Weight loss is 90% in the kitchen.
Cardio for heart health, hormone balancing, respiratory health, etc
Resistance training for strength, lean mass, etc
You need all 3 to be successful long term.
Eating back half exercise calories is what i usually do w great results. Most dont need to eat it back though, unless youre running 5-10 miles a day. Most exercise counters waaay over estimate how much you've burned.
Generalizing like this is not true, and maybe easy to do for a man who probably gets more calories than many women do in the first place. I get as much as 300 extra calories from my workouts and walking, and would be struggling if I didn't eat some of them back. You can pry those calories, from my cold dead hands. For women getting a 1300 cal goal, 150 cals can be the difference between succeeding or quitting, and many people choose a goal that's too aggressive in the first place, leaving exercise cals on the table just makes it worse.
Exercise calories can be inflated, which is why we tell people to start eating back half. While eating back half probably isn't accurate, it's a heckuva lot more accurate than 0. Then if you are losing faster or slower than expected, you tweak from there.
If someone is losing weight at the level they'd expect at their original calorie goal while not eating back any exercise calories, they are most likely logging food incorrectly and eating back those exercise calories without realizing it.16 -
robthephotog wrote: »Weight loss is 90% in the kitchen.
Cardio for heart health, hormone balancing, respiratory health, etc
Resistance training for strength, lean mass, etc
You need all 3 to be successful long term.
Eating back half exercise calories is what i usually do w great results. Most dont need to eat it back though, unless youre running 5-10 miles a day. Most exercise counters waaay over estimate how much you've burned.
The solution to exercise calories being over-estimated is to get more accurate estimates, not to ignore them completely. OP is reporting that she is feeling really hungry. To just ignore that would be to set herself up for failure.10 -
Do people advocating eating back only 50% of estimates actually think the estimates are not just inflated but DOUBLED?
And not just for some exercise but as an average of a huge selection of exercises?5 -
Do people advocating eating back only 50% of estimates actually think the estimates are not just inflated but DOUBLED?
And not just for some exercise but as an average of a huge selection of exercises?
Just my personal experience: when I compare the estimate on my Fitbit (which I know from experience is accurate for me) to the estimate from, say, a treadmill, the treadmill is more but it has never been anything close to doubled.4 -
Do people advocating eating back only 50% of estimates actually think the estimates are not just inflated but DOUBLED?
And not just for some exercise but as an average of a huge selection of exercises?
I just think it's easier math and better than them not eating back any, which it seems to me so many people are tempted to do. I usually try to say "at least half" (of course I didn't do that here), but I'm just hoping they won't ignore them entirely. Probably not the best answer to your question though
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Do people advocating eating back only 50% of estimates actually think the estimates are not just inflated but DOUBLED?
And not just for some exercise but as an average of a huge selection of exercises?
Just my personal experience: when I compare the estimate on my Fitbit (which I know from experience is accurate for me) to the estimate from, say, a treadmill, the treadmill is more but it has never been anything close to doubled.
Same for me. I've put effort into making my estimates are accurate/reasonable and although some estimates in the database are badly inflated, many are closer to gross not net, but I've never seen one I thought was doubled.
3 -
Do people advocating eating back only 50% of estimates actually think the estimates are not just inflated but DOUBLED?
And not just for some exercise but as an average of a huge selection of exercises?
I just think it's easier math and better than them not eating back any, which it seems to me so many people are tempted to do. I usually try to say "at least half" (of course I didn't do that here), but I'm just hoping they won't ignore them entirely. Probably not the best answer to your question though
Agree some are better than nothing.
Personally I agree with janejellyroll about people putting a little effort into making their estimates reasonable is a far better option than guessing.
For many exercises that's neither complicated or involves any investment apart from a little time.0 -
jenniferanderson3888 wrote: »I just started working out 3 days a week cardio to start. I was so starving within an hour and pretty much looking forward to the next meal. It really reved me up. So what I don’t understand is if I’m eating back my exercise calories. What is the point of working out? I’m not being negative this is just a question. I wanted to not eat exercise calories but that is impossible. Will the hunger level drop as I become used to exercise?
MFP gives you a calorie target based on your stats and activity level WITHOUT exercise to lose weight. As such, exercise is unaccounted for activity...common sense would say that it should be accounted for. When you log it and get additional calories to "eat back" that is how you are accounting for that activity.
Not accounting for that activity has the potential to make your calorie deficit excessively large as it relates to healthy and safe weight loss. This will also largely depend on what you're doing. If I go walk a couple of miles, I'm not going to be overly concerned as the calorie expenditure isn't particularly significant and that activity isn't putting much stress on my body. If I go ride 30 miles on a Saturday afternoon, that is a completely different story as I am going to burn somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000 calories give or take.
Given the bike scenario above, MFP gives me a before exercise calorie target of 1900 calories to lose 1 Lb per week...if I went and road my 30 miles and didn't account for that with more food, my net calorie intake would be 900 calories which would be the same thing as just eating 900 calories and not exercising which no grown man has any business doing from a health standpoint.0 -
Do people advocating eating back only 50% of estimates actually think the estimates are not just inflated but DOUBLED?
And not just for some exercise but as an average of a huge selection of exercises?
Years ago when I started here, people used to suggest eating 75% of their exercise calories. Then it became 50-75% and now that's been shortened to just 50%. I find the progression interesting.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Do people advocating eating back only 50% of estimates actually think the estimates are not just inflated but DOUBLED?
And not just for some exercise but as an average of a huge selection of exercises?
Just my personal experience: when I compare the estimate on my Fitbit (which I know from experience is accurate for me) to the estimate from, say, a treadmill, the treadmill is more but it has never been anything close to doubled.
Same for me. I've put effort into making my estimates are accurate/reasonable and although some estimates in the database are badly inflated, many are closer to gross not net, but I've never seen one I thought was doubled.
For what it's worth, the (Lifecycle) elliptical machine I used for a while really did just about double my estimated calorie burn. That thing would readily tell you you were burning 20 kcal/min.
That's the only one I've see that was like that, though.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Do people advocating eating back only 50% of estimates actually think the estimates are not just inflated but DOUBLED?
And not just for some exercise but as an average of a huge selection of exercises?
Years ago when I started here, people used to suggest eating 75% of their exercise calories. Then it became 50-75% and now that's been shortened to just 50%. I find the progression interesting.
Maybe it's in relation in declining understanding of mathematics in the general population?
(Sorry that was my old person's grumble for the day...…)
6 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Do people advocating eating back only 50% of estimates actually think the estimates are not just inflated but DOUBLED?
And not just for some exercise but as an average of a huge selection of exercises?
Years ago when I started here, people used to suggest eating 75% of their exercise calories. Then it became 50-75% and now that's been shortened to just 50%. I find the progression interesting.
Maybe it's in relation in declining understanding of mathematics in the general population?
(Sorry that was my old person's grumble for the day...…)
Well half is a lot easier to calculate...1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Do people advocating eating back only 50% of estimates actually think the estimates are not just inflated but DOUBLED?
And not just for some exercise but as an average of a huge selection of exercises?
Just my personal experience: when I compare the estimate on my Fitbit (which I know from experience is accurate for me) to the estimate from, say, a treadmill, the treadmill is more but it has never been anything close to doubled.
The treadmill readout will give you the TOTAL calories you burned during the time.
The Fitbit adjustment is the difference between what you would have burned without exercise (which is included in your NEAT) and the total exercise calories.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Do people advocating eating back only 50% of estimates actually think the estimates are not just inflated but DOUBLED?
And not just for some exercise but as an average of a huge selection of exercises?
Just my personal experience: when I compare the estimate on my Fitbit (which I know from experience is accurate for me) to the estimate from, say, a treadmill, the treadmill is more but it has never been anything close to doubled.
The treadmill readout will give you the TOTAL calories you burned during the time.
The Fitbit adjustment is the difference between what you would have burned without exercise (which is included in your NEAT) and the total exercise calories.
I understand the difference and I'm not referring to the adjustment. Aside from the adjustment on MPF, it's possible to see exercise details from Fitbit.5 -
TavistockToad wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Do people advocating eating back only 50% of estimates actually think the estimates are not just inflated but DOUBLED?
And not just for some exercise but as an average of a huge selection of exercises?
Years ago when I started here, people used to suggest eating 75% of their exercise calories. Then it became 50-75% and now that's been shortened to just 50%. I find the progression interesting.
Maybe it's in relation in declining understanding of mathematics in the general population?
(Sorry that was my old person's grumble for the day...…)
Well half is a lot easier to calculate...
Yeah, I mean I'd bet 75% is a better starting point, but people really do struggle with math in general. Most people seem to at least be able to estimate half.
And to be fair, I think most of the time people are suggested to start with 50% and make adjustments from there based on their results, not told that 50% is what they should eat back. It also splits the diff between people eating 100%, not losing weight, flipping out and immediately changing their goal to 1200 cals, and people starting with 0% and passing out in the gym bathroom. I might be being overly dramatic though.6 -
Why does no one ever say calorie balance determines weight loss, but exercise is for fun?
'Cause it is. If it isn't, keep trying stuff until you find something that is, because that's where the magic is. The fun exercise activity will eventually get you doing others, to be better at the fun one.
Yeah, yeah, exercise is good for fitness, exercise is good for health, exercise is good for strength; strength, fitness, and health make daily life easier and improve odds of a long, satisfying, independent life. Good stuff, highly worthwhile.
But blah, blah, blah. Fun is what gets this lazy, hedonic li'l ol' lady off the couch.
Find the fun, eat to fuel the fun, plus to attain/maintain a healthy weight, and all will be well.
Fun!!
OP: IME, hunger is common in the first week or two: An adaptation period.
If it persists longer, experiment with what you eat, and when you eat, to figure out what satiates you personally. Satiation is very individual. Some things that satiate different people, either one or a combination: More protein, more fat, more volume (like a big bunch of low-cal high fiber veg, but there are other options), different eating schedules (one-two-three six meals a day, snacks or not, all day grazing, others), specific foods (some I've seen (or felt) are oatmeal, baked potatoes, whole grains, . . . .).
Don't try to eat "only healthy foods". Try to eat in an overall healthy way, getting good nutrition, plus some treats for joy, so you don't feel restricted or deprived.
Review your food diary on better or worse craving days; try to figure out what made the difference (food, sleep, stress, boredom, social triggers, emotions, habit, exercise, other). Use that knowledge to tweak your strategies. You can figure it out.
Best wishes!3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 437 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
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions