Daily calories and exercise

mgodniak2106

Hi everyone!
Sorry if this has been already discussed somewhere but I can't seem to find the answer to my question. What better place to ask for advice than this community! But let me get to the point.
I'm March this year I decided to lose some extra weight.. Not much, only around 8kg but because I'm quite short (156cm) 8kg can make a big difference. Anyway, I downloaded this app and started with counting my calories, weighing food, ditching processed foods as much as possible, etc. I set my weight loss goal for 0.5kg/ week. I haven't been achieving this but the scales were going down and I was noticing the difference in my body's appearance. However the past few weeks my weight has been sitting a bit too still for my liking, not seeing much progress on the body, and now I'm wondering if I'm doing things wrong! Now I might make a total fool of myself but can someone please enlighten me! If My fitness Pal tells me my daily calories intake should be at 1450 but then it gives me additional calories after I've done a workout (eg. 350 calories) does that mean I can eat additional 350 calories or should I just take in the 1450 and nothing more?? This might be silly but I can't work this out and it's giving me a headache😭I'm freaking out that I'm either not eating enough or too much and I am confused out of my tits! Any help would be greatly appreciated. I'll even take the mocking and pitifull eye rolling which I probably deserve anyway.

apullum

Assuming your logging is otherwise accurate, MFP intends you to eat back all exercise calories. However, that is a big assumption.

To be sure your logging is as accurate as possible:
1) make sure you are using a food scale to weigh ALL food. Do not use measuring cups or spoons; do not enter anything as "1 serving," "1 piece," etc.
2) make sure your calorie burn numbers are reasonable. If you're using the MFP exercise calorie database, many people find those estimates to be too high, so they begin by eating only half the estimated exercise calories.
3) be consistent and patient. If you do both 1 and 2, you may still not see the scale go down for several weeks because you don't have much to lose, and your weight loss will therefore be slow.

sijomial

There's loads of useful sticky threads pinned to the top of the various forums which are well worth reading.


Your purposeful exercise isn't included in your daily goal until you log it and those estimated calories get added to your (non-exercise day) calorie goal - the idea is to keep the rate of loss / calorie deficit constant rather than have exercise boost that deficit to what may be unhealthy or just unhelpful and hard to sustain levels.
1450 is only your calorie goal for a day you don't exercise.

It's also trying to teach you the valuable life-lesson that exercise is for health/fitness/enjoyment and not just something to mindlessly burn calories for weight loss. Hopefully people will continue with exercise for life rather than see it as a short term fix.

lgfrie

Here's the upshot of it all: the theory behind "net-calories" as used by MFP and others.

1. You've got a "basal metabolic rate", or BMR. There are calculators all over the web where you can figure out what it is. It's how much energy (i.e. calories) your body needs to burn (whether in food or stored fat) to perform all the routine metabolic processes like pumping blood, digesting food, and thinking. It's based on your gender, height, weight, and age. So, for instance, a 35 year old dude who's 6' tall and 220 lbs might have a BMR of around 2,500 cals/day. But a 50 year old female, 5'6 and 140 lbs, might be more like 1600. I'm making those #'s up because I don't have a BMR calculator on screen, but that's the gist of it. Go find out what your BMR is. Your BMR is the # of cals you can eat per day and break even, without exercising at all, just sleeping and watching TV and sitting at a computer and the like.

2. Let's say your BMR is 1,900 - a pretty typical number. Now, let's say today you do 300 calories worth of exercise. Well, instead of burning 1900 calories, you're obviously going to burn 2200 calories today. So that's how many calories you can eat and still break even. Anything LESS than 2,200 and you're losing weight. Anything more than 2,200 and you are gaining weight. So, exercise calories + BMR = your break-even intake for the day.

3. A pound of body fat contains 3,500 calories worth of energy. So, if you eat 350 less calories than your break-even caloric intake (BMR + any exercise you do), you will lose 0.1 pounds of fat. If you eat 700 less calories you'll lose 0.2 pounds. And so on.

So from this, you can decide how many calories to eat per day. To lose a pound per week, you must be, on average, 500 calories under your exercise-adjusted BMR, because 500 cals x 7 days = 3,500, or loss of one pound. Similarly, if you manage to be 1,000 cals per day under your exercise-adjusted BMR, which is pretty challenging, you'd lose 2 pounds.

MFP asks you the questions it needs to determine your BMR and is simply applying this math each day in the background. You can do the math yourself, as described above, to set your calorie goal.

Two caveats:

A. In reality, exercise calories are not as high as exercise machines or most apps tell you. Why? Well, let's say your BMR is 2,400 (high if you're a woman, but just go with it for a moment). That means you are burning 100 calories per hour over a 24 hour period ... doing absolutely nothing. You can sleep, or watch TV, and still burn your 100 cals/hour. Now, let's say you go for a one hour walk and some app tells you you just burned 300 calories. Fine, except you would've burned 100 anyway. So you really only got 200 additional calories of fat burn. For this reason, exercise calories tend to predict more weight loss than actually occurs. In other words, the "net calories" concept is not perfect. You are better off just figuring out your BMR, figuring out how much weight you want to lose per week, and working out your target caloric intake, irrespective of exercise. If you do that, the exercise becomes a nice little extra, instead of being baked into a formula that overestimates how much weight you will lose.

B. I've learned from my own dieting efforts that weight loss is not linear but always works out in the long term. If you eat the correct # of calories to lose 1.5 lbs/week, you will lose 1.5 lbs per week in the long run, but you can have days, or weeks, where seemingly no weight is being lost. Why this is, is a great mystery. The "plateau". Every person on every diet eventually experiences it. The thing is, if you just plug away and record every single damn calorie and hit your targets religiously, you will lose the weight. It may be stubborn for three weeks and then shed off you like butter melting in a hot pan. It always works out to the BMR formula in the long term. You have to learn to ignore the daily ups and downs of the scale.

I once went on a diet and lost 50 lbs and tracked every single thing I put in my mouth for 4 months, and every minute of exercise. My weight loss over 4 months mapped precisely, to within half a pound over a 50 lbs weight loss, to the formula described above ... and as used by MFP (I don't actually know what MFP's algorithm is, but it's gonna be something liked I've described). Note, I deducted 20 % of the supposed exercise calories from various cardio machines, and that got the formula to line up with my actual weight loss.

Hope that's helpful.

sijomial

lgfrie wrote: »

Go find out what your BMR is. Your BMR is the # of cals you can eat per day and break even, without exercising at all.

@lgfrie
Sorry but that is wrong - BMR is your basal calorie needs if you are totally at rest and in a fasted state.

It is not your break even number - that's TDEE which includes your activity and exercise.

Many sites calculate TDEE (BMR x a combined activity and exercise multiplier) and then take a deficit off that number but MyFitnessPal doesn't.
It only multiplies BMR by a lower activity multiplier and ignores exercise until after it has actually been done.

umbramirror

@Igfrie I just wanted to thank you for your post. I thought it was very concise and informative. I liked seeing the significant points laid out in this way. Thanks!

lgfrie

sijomial - I'm not sure we're saying anything different. Although, looking at your profile pic vs mine, I'm inclined to assume you, not me, are correct in these matters LOL

If your BMR is 1,900 and you do absolutely nothing that day but sleep and watch TV, isn't it true that you can eat 1,900 and "break even"? Then if you turn off the TV and go do some exercise, your break-even point will adjust upward to account for the exercise performed. So, 1/2 hr on an exercise bike, and perhaps you're then at 2,200 instead of 1,900. The 1,900 is what you get just for remaining alive for the day - breathing, thinking, digesting food, etc. To break even at a caloric intake over 1,900, you have to go work for it - that is to say, exercise. I believe we are both saying that.

sijomial

lgfrie wrote: »

sijomial - I'm not sure we're saying anything different. Although, looking at your profile pic vs mine, I'm inclined to assume you, not me, are correct in these matters LOL

If your BMR is 1,900 and you do absolutely nothing that day but sleep and watch TV, isn't it true that you can eat 1,900 and "break even"? Then if you turn off the TV and go do some exercise, your break-even point will adjust upward to account for the exercise performed. So, 1/2 hr on an exercise bike, and perhaps you're then at 2,200 instead of 1,900. The 1,900 is what you get just for remaining alive for the day - breathing, thinking, digesting food, etc. To break even at a caloric intake over 1,900, you have to go work for it - that is to say, exercise. I believe we are both saying that.

I'm saying that BMR is not your break even / maintenance calories.
You are missing activity (and the minor TEF - thermic effect of feeding).

As an example if my son who has a very active job had an identical twin brother with a sedentary job they would both have the same BMR (both lying in bed all day, fasted).
But clearly the builder needs a much higher break even / maintenance number of calories than the desk jockey.

You also don't have to workout your own BMR as this site does it for you when you complete the set up.
Then you select an activity setting for your job/lifestyle which multiplies your BMR to give you your non-exercise day daily goal to maintain weight.

Then by selecting your chosen rate of loss it takes those calories away to create your deficit.

Exercise is then accounted for separately and after the event.

ashliedelgado

You've gotten a lot of really good advice here, and I've gotten a new favorite saying. Confused out of my tits? What? Best ever.

apullum

lgfrie wrote: »

sijomial - I'm not sure we're saying anything different. Although, looking at your profile pic vs mine, I'm inclined to assume you, not me, are correct in these matters LOL

If your BMR is 1,900 and you do absolutely nothing that day but sleep and watch TV, isn't it true that you can eat 1,900 and "break even"? Then if you turn off the TV and go do some exercise, your break-even point will adjust upward to account for the exercise performed. So, 1/2 hr on an exercise bike, and perhaps you're then at 2,200 instead of 1,900. The 1,900 is what you get just for remaining alive for the day - breathing, thinking, digesting food, etc. To break even at a caloric intake over 1,900, you have to go work for it - that is to say, exercise. I believe we are both saying that.

No, that is not true. BMR (basal metabolic rate) is the energy required only for your basic life functions. It is what you'd burn if you were in a coma. If you are awake, sitting, thinking, walking even from the bed to the toilet and back, etc., then your calorie burn is more than your BMR.

There is also a resting metabolic rate (RMR) calculation, which is closer to what you're describing, but even that measurement requires fasting (i.e., does not take into account digestion), avoidance of mental stimulation (i.e., takes into account consciousness but not much additional brain activity), complete physical stillness (i.e., you're not even picking up the TV remote)...you get the idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resting_metabolic_rate#Clinical_guidelines_for_conditions_of_resting_measurements

BMR is in that respect a theoretical concept that has limited application to daily life. The vast majority of us burn more calories than our BMR even if we are completely bedridden. You therefore "break even" at a higher calorie intake than your BMR even with minimal physical activity.

lgfrie

umbramirror wrote: »

@Igfrie I just wanted to thank you for your post. I thought it was very concise and informative. I liked seeing the significant points laid out in this way. Thanks!

Glad to help out. Good luck with your dieting efforts!

lgfrie

sijomial wrote: »

lgfrie wrote: »

sijomial - I'm not sure we're saying anything different. Although, looking at your profile pic vs mine, I'm inclined to assume you, not me, are correct in these matters LOL

If your BMR is 1,900 and you do absolutely nothing that day but sleep and watch TV, isn't it true that you can eat 1,900 and "break even"? Then if you turn off the TV and go do some exercise, your break-even point will adjust upward to account for the exercise performed. So, 1/2 hr on an exercise bike, and perhaps you're then at 2,200 instead of 1,900. The 1,900 is what you get just for remaining alive for the day - breathing, thinking, digesting food, etc. To break even at a caloric intake over 1,900, you have to go work for it - that is to say, exercise. I believe we are both saying that.

I'm saying that BMR is not your break even / maintenance calories.
You are missing activity (and the minor TEF - thermic effect of feeding).

As an example if my son who has a very active job had an identical twin brother with a sedentary job they would both have the same BMR (both lying in bed all day, fasted).
But clearly the builder needs a much higher break even / maintenance number of calories than the desk jockey.

You also don't have to workout your own BMR as this site does it for you when you complete the set up.
Then you select an activity setting for your job/lifestyle which multiplies your BMR to give you your non-exercise day daily goal to maintain weight.

Then by selecting your chosen rate of loss it takes those calories away to create your deficit.

Exercise is then accounted for separately and after the event.

Ah, now I see where you're going with it. Being a sedentary person by nature and profession, I figure my BMR is approximately my break-even. If I drag my butt over to an exercise machine, that gets added to my BMR for a higher break-even. But yes, of course, a Marine recruit at boot camp is going to have a break-even way, way above his BMR, although I think in my case, my break-even is probably startlingly close to my BMR lol So yes, general activeness irrespective of any specific workout requires some kind of BMR multiplier, unless one is a slug like me, and can just use BMR as the break-even.

sijomial

lgfrie wrote: »

Ah, now I see where you're going with it. Being a sedentary person by nature and profession, I figure my BMR is approximately my break-even. If I drag my butt over to an exercise machine, that gets added to my BMR for a higher break-even. But yes, of course, a Marine recruit at boot camp is going to have a break-even way, way above his BMR, although I think in my case, my break-even is probably startlingly close to my BMR lol So yes, general activeness irrespective of any specific workout requires some kind of BMR multiplier, unless one is a slug like me, and can just use BMR as the break-even.

Or alternatively just use the tool as designed and avoid all the complication?
Even a "slug" moves and eats and that requires calories.

BTW when I had a desk job Sedentary was too low for my actual needs and I had to select Lightly Active to match my actual caloric needs.

Then I retired and had to bump it up again to Active because I moved more and sat down less. I wouldn't ignore the impact of just general moving about and it's well worth considering how to incorporate more movement in your daily life.

mgodniak2106

Thank you everyone for your replies! This is extremely helpful and it would seem I have loads to read up on! Here I was, thinking that weight loss is just as simple as eating less, but in actual fact this is quite a complex process with a lot of science behind it... Or at least more than I anticipated 🤓🙄 it's also great to know that there are so many knowledgeable and helpful people connected through this app. Thanks again and let the reading begin 😁😂📖😅🙏🙏

mgodniak2106

apullum wrote: »

Assuming your logging is otherwise accurate, MFP intends you to eat back all exercise calories. However, that is a big assumption.

To be sure your logging is as accurate as possible:
1) make sure you are using a food scale to weigh ALL food. Do not use measuring cups or spoons; do not enter anything as "1 serving," "1 piece," etc.
2) make sure your calorie burn numbers are reasonable. If you're using the MFP exercise calorie database, many people find those estimates to be too high, so they begin by eating only half the estimated exercise calories.
3) be consistent and patient. If you do both 1 and 2, you may still not see the scale go down for several weeks because you don't have much to lose, and your weight loss will therefore be slow.

Thank you! I am actually weighing all my food as well as drinks in grams and ml and I'm also using a fitness tracker so I am getting a more accurate estimates of my calories burned than the generic MFP database. I guess I maybe am just a bit impatient 😅 thank you though

mgodniak2106

@igfrie thank you for your amazing posts! You have been super helpful

kimny72

mgodniak2106 wrote: »

Thank you everyone for your replies! This is extremely helpful and it would seem I have loads to read up on! Here I was, thinking that weight loss is just as simple as eating less, but in actual fact this is quite a complex process with a lot of science behind it... Or at least more than I anticipated 🤓🙄 it's also great to know that there are so many knowledgeable and helpful people connected through this app. Thanks again and let the reading begin 😁😂📖😅🙏🙏

It sounds complicated, but it's really not, I promise The short answer is... Set up your profile here and get a calorie goal, log your food accurately and consistently, log your exercise and eat back at least some of those calories, and be patient because weight loss isn't linear. I'd add that because you are shorter and don't have much to lose, you might actually find that even 0.5kg is tough to aim for and may have to go another notch slower, but you can always decide that as you go! These "Most Helpful Posts" may be helpful:

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10503681/exercise-calories-do-i-eat-these-a-video-explanation/p1

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10084670/it-is-unlikely-that-you-will-lose-weight-consistently-i-e-weight-loss-is-not-linear/p1

Good luck :drinker:

yirara

mgodniak2106 wrote: »

Thank you everyone for your replies! This is extremely helpful and it would seem I have loads to read up on! Here I was, thinking that weight loss is just as simple as eating less, but in actual fact this is quite a complex process with a lot of science behind it... Or at least more than I anticipated 🤓🙄 it's also great to know that there are so many knowledgeable and helpful people connected through this app. Thanks again and let the reading begin 😁😂📖😅🙏🙏

Actually, weight loss is a lot easier than diet sellers and magazines want you to believe. Hey, if things were easy then nobody in the diet industry would earn any money or the latest summer diet series in a magazine would only consist of one page, once. It really is just eat less. But getting to eat less might require a bit of work. And of course losing weight takes time. But you can do it

cwolfman13

lgfrie wrote: »

sijomial - I'm not sure we're saying anything different. Although, looking at your profile pic vs mine, I'm inclined to assume you, not me, are correct in these matters LOL

If your BMR is 1,900 and you do absolutely nothing that day but sleep and watch TV, isn't it true that you can eat 1,900 and "break even"? Then if you turn off the TV and go do some exercise, your break-even point will adjust upward to account for the exercise performed. So, 1/2 hr on an exercise bike, and perhaps you're then at 2,200 instead of 1,900. The 1,900 is what you get just for remaining alive for the day - breathing, thinking, digesting food, etc. To break even at a caloric intake over 1,900, you have to go work for it - that is to say, exercise. I believe we are both saying that.

BMR is the calories you burn just being alive...you would burn them in a coma. Everything you do beyond just being alive also burns calories, not just purposeful exercise. My BMR is around 1800 calories...without any exercise I still burn in the neighborhood of 2400-2500 calories just going about my day to day business which is largely sitting behind a desk at work.