Eat calories back

whocares2018

Do we need eat the calories back that this app gives us for exercise?

cmriverside

yes.

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

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/818082/exercise-calories-again-wtf/p1

Lietchi

Yes, the MFP system intends for you to eat back your exercise calories.
Two important conditions though:
- that you have set your activity level correctly (in the way that MFP intends): your activity level not including your exercise
- that the calories counted for your exercise are accurate. Depending on where these numbers come from (exercise machine, activity tracker with HRM,...) they are sometimes quite inflated.

whocares2018

Thanks all

BarbaraHelen2013

In principle, yes, that’s how the system is designed.

In reality, depending on how you’re tracking the calories burned via exercise, eating 100% of them may not be wise.

This is because estimates from gadgets and gym machines etc can be somewhat over estimated.

Conventional wisdom suggests that you start by eating around 50% back and monitoring over the course of a few weeks and adjusting as necessary according to your goals.

whocares2018

That’s what I’ve been doing only 50% thanks!

CorineJN

You don't need to. I don't at all. Too much room for error.

lgfrie

I've alternated a few times between using the MFP-supplied calorie target and eating half my exercise back, versus using TDEEcalculator.net to get my "exercise already included" calorie #, which is actually very close (18 calories lower) to what I'd get if I used the MFP number and added in 1/2 my exercise calories. The latter approach is easier to use if you do a pretty consistent amount of exercise every day. For me, the exercise is almost always the same as the previous day, so TDEE is easier. I like not having a variable calorie target in the diary; it's easier to plan out the day when I know what the exact number will be.

PAV8888

CorineJN wrote: »

You don't need to. I don't at all. Too much room for error.

So because there is room for error you go for zero. A number GUARANTEED to be wrong and actually the maximal error in the direction of underestimation?

The truth of the matter is that it may or may not matter AS MUCH for any individual depending on how large of a deficit they're shooting for, the length of time they've been functioning at a deficit, the amount of fat they have available to lose, and the type and amount of activity they engage in.

I have been aiming and continue to aim for sane, appropriate, effective and sustainable weight management. Fast results and fast rebounds... not that interested!

TeaBea

CorineJN wrote: »

You don't need to. I don't at all. Too much room for error.

So zero is more accurate?

OP - What BarbaraHelen missed was it depends on how you are tracking exercise AND your food intake. There are folks using a digital food scale, logging every single thing. Thru practice they have weeded out inaccurate entries. These people can eat a larger % of exercise calories because they aren't over eating.

Instead of throwing in the towel .....see CorineJN above, learn as you go. You may find you are very accurate. If that's the case, eating back 0% of exercise calories is a little bit like exercising to increase lean muscle loss. You should be fueling your workouts because large deficits won't help you retain as much.

Lgfrie points out another option: TDEE. Good option if your exercise is consistent.

mjglantz

I don't for the most part. As careful as I am with tracking I'm sure there is a lot of errors in what I enter. My Garmin calculates the calories burned and sometimes that seems VERY high. Right now I'm maintaining and have been for over 6 years so what I'm doing is working. It does seem that while I go over my calorie goal, my calories burned seems to offset that.

CorineJN

I've not "thrown in" the towel at all. There is no need to "eat back" what MFP tells you your exercise calories are. MOST trackers and exercise equipment are off by as much as 27%.

A much more reliable way is to establish the amount of calories that supports your goal by simply logging your food and your weight and size and dropping or raising as needed.

Of course that takes time and a bit of dedication, but at least it doesn't require you to rely on notoriously unreliable equipment and trackers.

PAV8888

CorineJN wrote: »

I've not "thrown in" the towel at all. There is no need to "eat back" what MFP tells you your exercise calories are. MOST trackers and exercise equipment are off by as much as 27%.

A much more reliable way is to establish the amount of calories that supports your goal by simply logging your food and your weight and size and dropping or raising as needed.

Of course that takes time and a bit of dedication, but at least it doesn't require you to rely on notoriously unreliable equipment and trackers.

Then you're using TDEE and weight, which is perfectly fine, and do-able.

But your method should have a higher starting point than MFP that deliberately doesn't take any exercise calories into account the way it is setup by default

And you would be missing out (which may be good for some and bad for others) on learning to associate increased activity with extra calories and less activity to less calories

Nony_Mouse

CorineJN wrote: »

I've not "thrown in" the towel at all. There is no need to "eat back" what MFP tells you your exercise calories are. MOST trackers and exercise equipment are off by as much as 27%.

A much more reliable way is to establish the amount of calories that supports your goal by simply logging your food and your weight and size and dropping or raising as needed.

Of course that takes time and a bit of dedication, but at least it doesn't require you to rely on notoriously unreliable equipment and trackers.

Which will result in the vast majority of people eating at least a percentage of their exercise calories back.

By starting with at least 50% of exercise cals, you don't have to wait weeks to gather enough data to accurately reflect your average weight loss. Eating none at all for that period of data gathering can result in substantially under eating, thereby not fuelling either your body or your exercise adequately. Given the number of people we see here setting their calories to the bare minimum, exercising on top of that and not eating those extra cals is a really, really bad idea.

By your own statement above, exercise equipment and trackers can be off by as much as 27%, and yet you choose to make that 100%?

OP, start off by eating back 50-75% of your exercise cals. Track for at least 6 weeks (eliminates hormonal water weight fluctuations), then look at your average weight loss over that time (a trending weight app is really handy for this). If you're losing faster than expected, increase your calories, if you're losing slower, decrease.

apullum

If you are following MFP’s calorie goal, then you are intended to eat back ALL exercise calories assuming they are calculated correctly. The only reasons not to do so would be if you are unsure whether they’re calculated correctly, or you are “saving” a reasonable portion of them to eat later in the week. This is not an opinion question. It is literally how the program is designed to work.

If you calculate your calories some way other than the MFP calorie goal, then how MFP is designed to work does not apply to you, and you should use your chosen method correctly.

IAmWomanHearMeRoar15

I sometimes eat them back and sometimes I don't. It depends on how I am feeling that day.

CorineJN

Of course I'm not 100% off, that's ridiculous. My body is 100% accurate in registering intake and output.

Yes, it takes time. There is no quick fix for learning to eat what your body needs.

WinoGelato

CorineJN wrote: »

Of course I'm not 100% off, that's ridiculous. My body is 100% accurate in registering intake and output.

Yes, it takes time. There is no quick fix for learning to eat what your body needs.

Part of learning to eat what your body needs is understanding that if you are exercising or more active than normal, your body needs more fuel to support that. Which is exactly why eating back calories, with reasonable attention to accuracy, is important for long term success. Just ignoring them and going by body weight, can really sacrifice valuable data points and put more emphasis on an indicator that has natural fluctuations masked by many factors. Water weight, stress, etc - how does your 100% accurate body interpret those variables?

cmriverside

CorineJN wrote: »

You don't need to. I don't at all. Too much room for error.

I know this has been covered. I see you're new to MFP and new to posting. Just about anything works in the beginning unless you are close to a healthy weight already.

When I started weight loss I knew it was about calories and I came to MFP and entered my stats. I used the numbers it gave me. I logged food and exercise and I ate all the calories given by MFP for exercise. I lost at about the rate it suggested. I am under no illusion that my entries (both food and exercise) were accurate.

When I had a lot of weight to lose, I had all kinds of room for error. I'm sure I was wildly off on both food and exercise calories but that didn't stop me from losing weight. I had a lot of weight to lose.

As I neared my Goal weight ish got real. I had to use a food scale, and I had to figure out a way to account for my exercise that was realistic and consistent. With not much weight to lose, every little detail makes a big difference.

Luckily I had nearly a year's worth of my own collected data to use. That's the best way. Trying to get accurate food and close to accurate exercise is the key and then logging them over Time.

I don't know what kind of actual purposeful exercise you do and if it is moderate exercise you may not need more calories but at one point I was exercising enough and eating with a large enough deficit that I started having all kinds of problems. Hair loss, brittle nails, cracking skin on fingers and feet, irritability, anxiety, fatigue, trouble sleeping, inability to finish workouts. It's just as important to eat enough as it is to not eat too much.

How does MyFitnessPal calculate my initial goals?

lemurcat2

CorineJN wrote: »

I've not "thrown in" the towel at all. There is no need to "eat back" what MFP tells you your exercise calories are. MOST trackers and exercise equipment are off by as much as 27%.

A much more reliable way is to establish the amount of calories that supports your goal by simply logging your food and your weight and size and dropping or raising as needed.

Of course that takes time and a bit of dedication, but at least it doesn't require you to rely on notoriously unreliable equipment and trackers.

Starting at a target that's way too low (as it would be if you were eating, say, 1200 and doing lots of exercise and not eating any back) for a lot of people is a surefire road to failure, due to burn out, exhaustion, hunger.

It makes more sense, for someone who is new and does enough exercise for this question to matter, to estimate the way MFP is designed to do -- and that means eating back at least some exercise cals (many recommend 50% or 75% at first until you see how results are). That's especially true for those of us who tracked cals really carefully and underestimated activity level.

After you do it a while, yes, of course, the most accurate way is to adjust, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to track exercise cals or not the best way to start.

If you are experienced enough to have a sense of your TDEE and activity level, then sure, start with a calorie goal that already includes exercise -- which is NOT the goal MFP gives you. I recently decided to try to lose more weight, and I started with a TDEE including my exercise, since I have been here plenty long enough to have a good sense and there's no chance I will undereat. Also, if you want it's possible to get a good starting estimate including exercise from a TDEE calculator. But neither of these cases applies to a newbie at MFP using the MFP system who asks about exercise cals. MFP method is that you eat exercise cals (and adjust based on results going forward, of course).

Luke_rabbit

lemurcat2 wrote: »

Starting at a target that's way too low (as it would be if you were eating, say, 1200 and doing lots of exercise and not eating any back) for a lot of people is a surefire road to failure, due to burn out, exhaustion, hunger.

Heart failure, too, due to lost heart muscle.

Please let's all remember to recommend safe weight loss behavior.

💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖