Fitbit calories
vivjay67
Posts: 11 Member
Is it possible that whilst total steps from a fitbit can be shown as exercise, the calories dont get added in.
At the moment they are being added on to my daily allowance as available to eat, but i dont want to see the extra calories. I need to stick to my calorie allowance, but when i'm burning, its showing extra on my daily allowance, so my 1800 allowance jumps up to 2300. I want it to stay at 1800, whilst still showing that i've done the steps.
Is this possible or not?
Thanks
At the moment they are being added on to my daily allowance as available to eat, but i dont want to see the extra calories. I need to stick to my calorie allowance, but when i'm burning, its showing extra on my daily allowance, so my 1800 allowance jumps up to 2300. I want it to stay at 1800, whilst still showing that i've done the steps.
Is this possible or not?
Thanks
0
Replies
-
Turn 'add exercise calories on' too off1
-
-
that might be why i can't find it. I'm not a premium member. I can't find it0
-
-
Why don't you want to fuel your activity?4
-
You can find it under "goals" I don't think you need premium.
0 -
Jackie9003 wrote: »You can find it under "goals" I don't think you need premium.
Are you a premium member? I can also view it under goals, but it is locked for me (as I am not premium) on both the app and website view.0 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »Why don't you want to fuel your activity?
While as a general rule I wholeheartedly endorse this, I am thinking that OP (or someone else reading this who is looking to do the same thing) may be using a TDEE method of calculating a calorie goal (including exercise at the front end).
And turning off exercise calories is a premium feature. If you don’t want to pay for that, you’ll be best off disconnecting your fitbit.1 -
I am a premium member so apologies.0
-
Is it possible that whilst total steps from a fitbit can be shown as exercise, the calories dont get added in.
At the moment they are being added on to my daily allowance as available to eat, but i dont want to see the extra calories. I need to stick to my calorie allowance, but when i'm burning, its showing extra on my daily allowance, so my 1800 allowance jumps up to 2300. I want it to stay at 1800, whilst still showing that i've done the steps.
Is this possible or not?
Thanks
Just disconnect your FitBit from MFP and look at your steps on your FitBit or FitBit app.0 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »autumnblade75 wrote: »Why don't you want to fuel your activity?
While as a general rule I wholeheartedly endorse this, I am thinking that OP (or someone else reading this who is looking to do the same thing) may be using a TDEE method of calculating a calorie goal (including exercise at the front end).
And turning off exercise calories is a premium feature. If you don’t want to pay for that, you’ll be best off disconnecting your fitbit.
Which would be wise as myfitnesspal is not great and estimating this very accurately in the first place.1 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »autumnblade75 wrote: »Why don't you want to fuel your activity?
While as a general rule I wholeheartedly endorse this, I am thinking that OP (or someone else reading this who is looking to do the same thing) may be using a TDEE method of calculating a calorie goal (including exercise at the front end).
And turning off exercise calories is a premium feature. If you don’t want to pay for that, you’ll be best off disconnecting your fitbit.
Which would be wise as myfitnesspal is not great and estimating this very accurately in the first place.
Meh. There are a lot of layers involved in deciding what works best and while mfp May overestimate calorie burns for some exercises, that’s not universally true nor is the mfp exercise database the only mechanism through which to estimate calorie burns.
I am a runner and run anywhere from 0 to 60 miles a week. Due to such tremendous variation in calorie burn from week to week-a TDEE method is a terrible idea for me.
1 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »Why don't you want to fuel your activity?
Maybe she wants to fuel her activity from body fat. Which appears to be why most use myfitnespal......
MFP's calorie goal already includes a deficit to burn bodyfat, as I'm sure you know. Depending on the amount of exercise and the weight loss rate a person has chosen, not eating back exercise calories (aka fueling their activity) can be a very bad idea because it can lead to an excessive calorie deficit.4 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »Why don't you want to fuel your activity?
Maybe she wants to fuel her activity from body fat. Which appears to be why most use myfitnespal......
MFP's calorie target is already a deficit calorie target. Depending on the size of the deficit, making that deficit larger with exercise and not accounting for that activity with additional calories can be dangerous and have further health ramifications.
If I were to use MFP's method (I use TDEE) I would get a calorie target of around 1900 calories. I road ride and mountain bike on the regular...a 30 mile road ride isn't anything unusual for me and I'll burn in the neighborhood of 1,000 calories doing that. If I didn't account for it, it would leave me at a net 900 calories consumed for the day which is a dangerously low net calorie intake for a grown man. Ultimately my fitness, performance, and recovery would suffer immensely...not to mention other health complications that come from under feeding by tremendous amounts.1 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »while mfp May overestimate calorie burns for some exercises, that’s not universally true nor is the mfp exercise database the only mechanism through which to estimate calorie burns.
And who said this?Duck_Puddle wrote: »I am a runner and run anywhere from 0 to 60 miles a week. Due to such tremendous variation in calorie burn from week to week-a TDEE method is a terrible idea for me.
Not to sure what that has to do with this thread... Nonetheless what exactly do you mean by a 'TDEE method?'0 -
Checked and this feature is only unlocked for premium members.0
-
Duck_Puddle wrote: »autumnblade75 wrote: »Why don't you want to fuel your activity?
While as a general rule I wholeheartedly endorse this, I am thinking that OP (or someone else reading this who is looking to do the same thing) may be using a TDEE method of calculating a calorie goal (including exercise at the front end).
And turning off exercise calories is a premium feature. If you don’t want to pay for that, you’ll be best off disconnecting your fitbit.
Which would be wise as myfitnesspal is not great and estimating this very accurately in the first place.
If she syncs a Fitbit, MFP is not estimating her exercise calories, it's just reconciling her calorie goal with what Fitbit says her total calorie burn for the day was, so it's irrelevant whether MFP is good at estimating exercise or not.autumnblade75 wrote: »Why don't you want to fuel your activity?
Maybe she wants to fuel her activity from body fat. Which appears to be why most use myfitnespal......
MFP's calorie goal already includes a deficit to burn bodyfat, as I'm sure you know. Depending on the amount of exercise and the weight loss rate a person has chosen, not eating back exercise calories (aka fueling their activity) can be a very bad idea because it can lead to an excessive calorie deficit.
Firstly MFP doesn't ask enough questions to establish an accurate TDEE or appropriate calorie deficit from the get go. Secondly you are assuming a lot about someone's specific goal and how this has been set up to just throw out a blanket statement that you should be eating back all the calories you burn through exercise.
Please define excessive deficit for the global population without knowing a single thing about their specific circumstances....
Then please explain exactly why your hypothetically excessive deficit as it applies to the entire world is a bad idea...
MFP isn't trying to establish a TDEE. It's only trying to estimate NEAT. It asks the questions that would be normal for estimating NEAT. If one starts with a NEAT estimate, one accounts for intentional exercise separately, such as by syncing a decent fitness tracker. If one tells MFP setup one wishes to lose X amount of weight per week, it adjusts calorie goal by enough calories below the NEAT estimate to accomplish that. One then monitors results for 4-6 weeks, and adjusts intake, if one happens to be a person for whom statistical estimates of calorie expenditure turn out to be materially inaccurate . . . which is unusual.4 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »while mfp May overestimate calorie burns for some exercises, that’s not universally true nor is the mfp exercise database the only mechanism through which to estimate calorie burns.
And who said this?Duck_Puddle wrote: »I am a runner and run anywhere from 0 to 60 miles a week. Due to such tremendous variation in calorie burn from week to week-a TDEE method is a terrible idea for me.
Not to sure what that has to do with this thread... Nonetheless what exactly do you mean by a 'TDEE method?'
Your giving advise in this thread and you don't know what TDEE method is? Do you know what NEAT method is? That is what MFP uses. Maybe some research and learning is in order?4 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »while mfp May overestimate calorie burns for some exercises, that’s not universally true nor is the mfp exercise database the only mechanism through which to estimate calorie burns.
And who said this?Duck_Puddle wrote: »I am a runner and run anywhere from 0 to 60 miles a week. Due to such tremendous variation in calorie burn from week to week-a TDEE method is a terrible idea for me.
Not to sure what that has to do with this thread... Nonetheless what exactly do you mean by a 'TDEE method?'
Your giving advise in this thread and you don't know what TDEE method is? Do you know what NEAT method is? That is what MFP uses. Maybe some research and learning is in order?
I promise you I have forgotten better information than you will ever know.
I'm asking you to define your made up terms.
There is no such thing as 'TDEE method', nor is there any such thing as 'NEAT method'. Now you are confusing variables that make up TDEE with methods used to calculate TDEE.
So since you have invented these terms. Please define what a 'TDEE and a NEAT method' are instead of trying to insult someone (who based on your childish and nebulous response) is far more educated and experienced in these topics than yourself.
Also stop implying that people are making various statements in their post because you have trouble understanding what you are reading.
You're the one asking the questions there Sparky. For someone who thinks they are so knowledgable, it doesn't show. It's not my job to educate one as illustrious as you. And I'm not the one who first used the term. Good luck!1 -
If she syncs a Fitbit, MFP is not estimating her exercise calories, it's just reconciling her calorie goal with what Fitbit says her total calorie burn for the day was, so it's irrelevant whether MFP is good at estimating exercise or not.
Granted. I'll restate. Fitbits are not great and estimating calorie burn very accurately in the first place.
MFP isn't trying to establish a TDEE. It's only trying to estimate NEAT.
And how do you figure that?
All it asks is 'how active are you'?. It does not try to differentiate between TEA and NEAT.
It asks the questions that would be normal for estimating NEAT.
Define 'normal'. I ask a lot more questions than that when determining NEAT, which is probably why I get so close to the actual baseline when working these things out.If one starts with a NEAT estimate, one accounts for intentional exercise separately, such as by syncing a decent fitness tracker.
Does one though? Just from reading the majority of the posts on this forum it appears 'one' correlates well to 'most' people using myfitnesspal (on this forum at least) that don't truly understand how to create a calorie deficit as they are just using what MFP spits out at them despite the fact it does not ask enough questions to calculate their TDEE.
Which is all my point was in my original one sentence comment. Which is accurate.
Also please define 'decent' fitness tracker. Because frankly they don't know enough about the user to set as accurate as possible a starting point either.If one tells MFP setup one wishes to lose X amount of weight per week, it adjusts calorie goal by enough calories below the NEAT estimate to accomplish that.
Does it though? How could it possibly get this right? It doesn't ask enough questions to get a decent NEAT estimate in the first place. It doesn't even discuss NEAT. The newbie user is going to assume it is calculating their TDEE. Not that they probably even know what that is either.One then monitors results for 4-6 weeks, and adjusts intake, if one happens to be a person for whom statistical estimates of calorie expenditure turn out to be materially inaccurate . . . which is unusual.
Does one though? Probably not. Because they don't understand the process it takes to actually lose fat. They plug all their information into these things and expect it to be steering them in the right direction. Which your statements just further highlight that this is most likely not what is happening.
Regarding statistical estimates. These are only of value provided you have calculated everything correctly from the start.
If it's not obvious by now using the data that MFP and fitbit spit out at you as a baseline is not going to get you off to a good start.
You might as well just track what you eat for 4 to 6 weeks and then set a deficit off of those results.
Which then leads into another broad range of questions to appropriately apply a deficit.
Weight, height, age, and 'how active are you'?
Just don't cut it.
So your argument amounts to saying that a process many of us have used to great success doesn't actually work. Cool.5 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »while mfp May overestimate calorie burns for some exercises, that’s not universally true nor is the mfp exercise database the only mechanism through which to estimate calorie burns.
And who said this?Duck_Puddle wrote: »I am a runner and run anywhere from 0 to 60 miles a week. Due to such tremendous variation in calorie burn from week to week-a TDEE method is a terrible idea for me.
Not to sure what that has to do with this thread... Nonetheless what exactly do you mean by a 'TDEE method?'
That was in reply to your vague comment that suggested [my previous comment] would be wise since mfp isn’t good at estimating “this”.
My previous comment was about a using what is typically referred to as a TDEE method (for estimating calorie intake rather than MFP’s built-in NEAT + exercise method).
I assumed your “this” and “that” were in reference to the comments to which you replied.
My mistake.1 -
a process many of us have used to great success doesn't actually work. Cool.
Define 'many'. In contrast to what? I would hazard a guess there is more people that aren't successful or I wouldn't have a job.
My statement from the start was that MFP doesn't do the best job at estimating TDEE. And I stand by that. You are the one who decided to start an 'argument'.
Just because something works for 'some' doesn't mean it will work for all.
If using the MFP data allows someone to achieve their goals great. Surely my point that in order to calculate an accurate TDEE more questions need to be asked is obvious by now. If MFP just happens to fall across a calorie intake number that actually matches up to what you require and allows you to achieve your goal.
Well that is just dumb luck.
Have you checked the Success Stories section? I mean-for just some of the successful people? Maybe you’ll get lucky and find one or two?
Have you asked about the success of the people in this thread?
Have you bothered yet to figure out how mfp establishes a calorie goal (hint: it’s not TDEE)?
Mfp works remarkably well when used as intended. Really it works as well as any other calculator including whatever questions you’re asking. Perhaps even better than most calculators and questions that assume a consistent level of activity.
But maybe it all exclusively dumb luck.
4 -
The best advice I've read is to eat half the exercise calories back. The weeks I've done that, I've felt full with a decent amount of energy and have also met my weight loss goal to a "T".
If I don't eat back around half of my exercise calories I feel sluggish a day or two later.
If I eat back all of them I end up not meeting my weight loss goals.
It's good to take your activity into account when deciding how much to eat, don't be too strict on yourself because then you lose energy and become less active which slows down everything.2 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »while mfp May overestimate calorie burns for some exercises, that’s not universally true nor is the mfp exercise database the only mechanism through which to estimate calorie burns.
And who said this?Duck_Puddle wrote: »I am a runner and run anywhere from 0 to 60 miles a week. Due to such tremendous variation in calorie burn from week to week-a TDEE method is a terrible idea for me.
Not to sure what that has to do with this thread... Nonetheless what exactly do you mean by a 'TDEE method?'
That was in reply to your vague comment that suggested [my previous comment] would be wise since mfp isn’t good at estimating “this”.
My previous comment was about a using what is typically referred to as a TDEE method (for estimating calorie intake rather than MFP’s built-in NEAT + exercise method).
I assumed your “this” and “that” were in reference to the comments to which you replied.
My mistake.
By 'this' I was referring to calculating TDEE using alternative methods as opposed to letting myfitnesspal calculate this for you. However you are describing something, not sure what, as being a 'TDEE method'.
There is no such thing. This just sounds like a blanket term you have made up to describe using a method to calculate TDEE. This is very vague.
Please provide one single reference where anybody with any credibility in this industry, or any scientific research that has ever referred to any method for calculating TDEE as 'TDEE method'.
There is many methods.
None are 'typically', as you have said, referred to as 'TDEE methods'.
This statement is extremely vague.
This is not so much a question of scientific terminology as it is of just normal English language. "TDEE method" = method utilizing TDEE.
The remarks that provoked this odd side branch about "TDEE method" seem to be these:While as a general rule I wholeheartedly endorse this, I am thinking that OP (or someone else reading this who is looking to do the same thing) may be using a TDEE method of calculating a calorie goal (including exercise at the front end).I am a runner and run anywhere from 0 to 60 miles a week. Due to such tremendous variation in calorie burn from week to week-a TDEE method is a terrible idea for me.
Some people use a so-called "TDEE calculator" outside of MFP to get a base calorie estimate, and subtract a percentage or flat number of calories to derive a daily calorie goal. They manually input that goal into MFP, rather than letting MFP caculate a goal for them. Because TDEE averages planned intentional exercise into the daily calorie estimate, those people then do not separately log exercise. This would, in simple English, be the "TDEE method".
That is not the method that MFP is designed for, but MFP can be used that way.
MFP's help information and instructions make it reasonably clear that intentional exercise is not included in the base calorie goal it calculates for its users. Rather, daily life activity (occupation and other necessities) are what should be considered when chosing an "activity level" in one's profile. Essentially, MFP is estimating NEAT, and subtracting a flat number of calories based on target loss rate (but subject to certain minimums), to derive a starting calorie goal. It intends that one separately log intentional exercise (whether using MFP's MET-based estimates, or some other source), or sync a tracker to do a similar adjustment. In simple English, that's a "NEAT method", or others in this thread have used the term "MFP method". It is not based on average TDEE per se.
This is common terminology in the MFP forums, and I believe understood by most users who've been participating here for even a bit. If you look back through the thread, you'll see others contrasting approaches using TDEE to the "MFP method", an equivalent reference to "NEAT method" or referring to that distinction in other informal ways. In that context, it seems perfectly reasonable to say "typically referred to as TDEE method", i.e., typically used here in the MFP forums as a plain English term for the above-described process.2 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »Duck_Puddle wrote: »while mfp May overestimate calorie burns for some exercises, that’s not universally true nor is the mfp exercise database the only mechanism through which to estimate calorie burns.
And who said this?Duck_Puddle wrote: »I am a runner and run anywhere from 0 to 60 miles a week. Due to such tremendous variation in calorie burn from week to week-a TDEE method is a terrible idea for me.
Not to sure what that has to do with this thread... Nonetheless what exactly do you mean by a 'TDEE method?'
That was in reply to your vague comment that suggested [my previous comment] would be wise since mfp isn’t good at estimating “this”.
My previous comment was about a using what is typically referred to as a TDEE method (for estimating calorie intake rather than MFP’s built-in NEAT + exercise method).
I assumed your “this” and “that” were in reference to the comments to which you replied.
My mistake.
By 'this' I was referring to calculating TDEE using alternative methods as opposed to letting myfitnesspal calculate this for you. However you are describing something, not sure what, as being a 'TDEE method'.
There is no such thing. This just sounds like a blanket term you have made up to describe using a method to calculate TDEE. This is very vague.
Please provide one single reference where anybody with any credibility in this industry, or any scientific research that has ever referred to any method for calculating TDEE as 'TDEE method'.
There is many methods.
None are 'typically', as you have said, referred to as 'TDEE methods'.
This statement is extremely vague.
No one is using any terminology that isn’t commonplace in this community-the one you’ve descended upon spewing vitriol about its members and/or the tool itself in every single post you’ve made.
You must be a troll. No one is this unnecessarily antagonistic and confrontational without even making a tiny attempt to learn the norms of the community he’s attempting to become a part of unless their sole intention is to troll and create drama.
Too bad since you apparently know everything there is to know about everything.
Perhaps others are willing to continue to play with you but I’ve already done my time this life with toddlers.3 -
EatThePopcorn wrote: »The best advice I've read is to eat half the exercise calories back. The weeks I've done that, I've felt full with a decent amount of energy and have also met my weight loss goal to a "T".
If I don't eat back around half of my exercise calories I feel sluggish a day or two later.
If I eat back all of them I end up not meeting my weight loss goals.
It's good to take your activity into account when deciding how much to eat, don't be too strict on yourself because then you lose energy and become less active which slows down everything.
Eating half is just a method some people use while they're determining how accurate the overall calorie burn estimate is. If someone is eating back half and still losing more than expected, then they'll known they need to eat more. So the advice isn't (or shouldn't be) "Eat back half," the advice should be to eat a fixed number (which may be half or 75% or even 100%), pay attention to results, and adjust from there.4 -
@Duck_Puddle As a fellow runner, I am sure you're aware of the inadvisability of running 0 miles one week and 60 the next. I do take your meaning, that it would be inconvenient to recalculate TDEE every week based on expected mileage, but in general, when one is not training for a marathon or similar, there's not as much variation as you're trying to suggest.
Both TDEE and NEAT are valid, and I hadn't considered that OP might be trying to use MFP in that manner. She's got an open food diary, though - and the discrepancy between her goal and her Fitbit number suggests that either way, she's not fueling appropriately.
1 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »@Duck_Puddle As a fellow runner, I am sure you're aware of the inadvisability of running 0 miles one week and 60 the next. I do take your meaning, that it would be inconvenient to recalculate TDEE every week based on expected mileage, but in general, when one is not training for a marathon or similar, there's not as much variation as you're trying to suggest.
Both TDEE and NEAT are valid, and I hadn't considered that OP might be trying to use MFP in that manner. She's got an open food diary, though - and the discrepancy between her goal and her Fitbit number suggests that either way, she's not fueling appropriately.
I don't know if anyone is talking about 0 one week and 60 the next, but as a long distance runner, I've had weeks where I've done 40 one week and 50 the next and that's significant enough *for me*, that I prefer to use NEAT. Other people in the same circumstance may be comfortable with TDEE, but NEAT is my preference. It also prevents me from having to recalculate my TDEE when I'm in heavier training periods. In January and February, I may be averaging 30 miles a week. In July and August, it can be more like 60 or 70.
Both are valid ways to get to the same point, it's just individual preferences and circumstances.2 -
autumnblade75 wrote: »@Duck_Puddle As a fellow runner, I am sure you're aware of the inadvisability of running 0 miles one week and 60 the next. I do take your meaning, that it would be inconvenient to recalculate TDEE every week based on expected mileage, but in general, when one is not training for a marathon or similar, there's not as much variation as you're trying to suggest.
Both TDEE and NEAT are valid, and I hadn't considered that OP might be trying to use MFP in that manner. She's got an open food diary, though - and the discrepancy between her goal and her Fitbit number suggests that either way, she's not fueling appropriately.
I wasn’t implying that the 0 and 60 would be adjacent weeks. Only attempting to illustrate to a combative & belligerent poster (not you) the reasons that method may not be preferred for me (or others like me that may have varying activity levels). It seemed subtly wasn’t the way the go with that.
Both methods are indeed valid and one should choose to use whatever works best for them.
And whichever method-one should always be fueling their activity level.
2
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
- 427 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