We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
"Total" vs "Net" cals: Should I adjust my daily calorie goal to account for exercise?
chlssddd445
Posts: 7 Member
Hi. I exercise once per day usually burning 100-230 cals usually with yoga, pilates, or circuit training, with one rest day.
My calorie goal is 1,200 to lose weight.
I am wondering whether I should keep the the "exercise calories" feature or off?
Because when I have this turned on, I eat more—even if I'm not necessarily hungry. Psychologically I know I "can have" those calories so I eat them... this doesn't seem right. Also, as a binge/emotional eater, I will exercise a lot to generate cals that I can then binge eat.
For one week, my usual "total" calories over weekly goal is 1,144. My "daily average" is 1,363. My net calories are under my goal- 335 under with a net average of 1,152. Am I still losing weight with these stats? How do I know too many "total" calories over my weekly goal is too many?
Help, please! When I eat 1,200 cals per day without exercising, I feel very hungry and find it difficult. When I exercise I feel like I am eating like normal, and not losing any weight.
(p.s— I have only logged for 17 days, during which time I have just maintained weight)
Thanks,
S
My calorie goal is 1,200 to lose weight.
I am wondering whether I should keep the the "exercise calories" feature or off?
Because when I have this turned on, I eat more—even if I'm not necessarily hungry. Psychologically I know I "can have" those calories so I eat them... this doesn't seem right. Also, as a binge/emotional eater, I will exercise a lot to generate cals that I can then binge eat.
For one week, my usual "total" calories over weekly goal is 1,144. My "daily average" is 1,363. My net calories are under my goal- 335 under with a net average of 1,152. Am I still losing weight with these stats? How do I know too many "total" calories over my weekly goal is too many?
Help, please! When I eat 1,200 cals per day without exercising, I feel very hungry and find it difficult. When I exercise I feel like I am eating like normal, and not losing any weight.
(p.s— I have only logged for 17 days, during which time I have just maintained weight)
Thanks,
S
0
Replies
-
MFP is designed for you to eat back the extra calories burnt through exercise. If your calorie goal comes from MFP, you will want to account for the calories you're burning because MFP doesn't include them in setting your initial goal.
1,200 is the very lowest that someone should generally go so it is very important for you to account for the activity that you're doing.
It doesn't "seem" right because we're given so many negative messages about how we need to suffer during weight loss, so we assume that lower is always better. This isn't the case. In order to sustain activity and meet our nutritional needs, it's important that we don't go too low.
You write "feel" a lot in your post. I would try to get some solid data so I wouldn't have to rely just on feelings. If you "feel" like you aren't losing weight, what exactly does that mean? If you've been logging for just seventeen days, I don't think you have enough data to compare the two ways of eating. That's barely over two weeks.9 -
Dear Jane, thanks for writing back so quickly!
Another factor to consider, when I set it up I said I have moderate physical activity, so that helped it set the calorie goal, I guess? What does that change?
Good point about suffering. This is my first time ever trying a diet, so I just assumed I'd be grumpy and hungry.
When I say I "feel" like I'm not losing weight, I mean that I eat even when I'm not hungry when I eat at the level it recommends I do when it accounts for exercise simply because I know I "can" (and I think I am actually eating more than I would intuitively). I want to lose weight, not to build muscle. Plus I don't think the calories burned is accurate, since it always varies per person and per exercise. So I am tempted to turn off this feature. As for the data, I measure everything I eat, but I can't accurately measure calories since I don't have a fitbit, etc.
S
0 -
chlssddd445 wrote: »Dear Jane, thanks for writing back so quickly!
Another factor to consider, when I set it up I said I have moderate physical activity, so that helped it set the calorie goal, I guess? What does that change?
Good point about suffering. This is my first time ever trying a diet, so I just assumed I'd be grumpy and hungry.
When I say I "feel" like I'm not losing weight, I mean that I eat even when I'm not hungry when I eat at the level it recommends I do when it accounts for exercise simply because I know I "can" (and I think I am actually eating more than I would intuitively). I want to lose weight, not to build muscle. Plus I don't think the calories burned is accurate, since it always varies per person and per exercise. So I am tempted to turn off this feature. As for the data, I measure everything I eat, but I can't accurately measure calories since I don't have a fitbit, etc.
S
When you set your activity level, it's only supposed to be your day to day hum drum and doesn't include exercise if you're setting it up the way MFP intends...that is why you get additional calories for exercise...that is how MFP accounts for that activity that isn't accounted for in your activity level. Part of this is learning how to properly fuel your fitness...it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with building muscle, it's fueling your activity properly. The more you move, the more energy (calories) your body requires.
Here's an example using my numbers. Activity is light active for my day to day and MFP gives me a base calorie target of 1900 calories at that activity level to lose 1 Lb per week. This means that MFP is estimating my non exercise maintenance to be around 2400 calories. 2400-1900= 500 calorie daily deficit.
I exercise pretty much everyday namely in the form of road cycling or mountain biking...A typical ride will burn somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 calories...more, and often much more when I go for half day and all day rides. So, if I didn't account for those 500 calories, my net calories would be 1400 which is lower than the lowest recommendation for men. So I get an additional 500 calories to eat to fuel that exercise activity but I still maintain my 500 calorie deficit eating 2400 calories because my maintenance is now also 500 calories higher at 2900 calories.
I lose at the same intended rate while properly fueling my fitness. Failure to fuel fitness activities ultimately will lead to decreased performance and recovery issues, particularly if you get into more intense exercise and/or longer duration fitness endeavors. Healthy and fit people eat to be healthy and fit and fitness requires fuel (calories)5 -
chlssddd445 wrote: »Dear Jane, thanks for writing back so quickly!
Another factor to consider, when I set it up I said I have moderate physical activity, so that helped it set the calorie goal, I guess? What does that change?
Good point about suffering. This is my first time ever trying a diet, so I just assumed I'd be grumpy and hungry.
When I say I "feel" like I'm not losing weight, I mean that I eat even when I'm not hungry when I eat at the level it recommends I do when it accounts for exercise simply because I know I "can" (and I think I am actually eating more than I would intuitively). I want to lose weight, not to build muscle. Plus I don't think the calories burned is accurate, since it always varies per person and per exercise. So I am tempted to turn off this feature. As for the data, I measure everything I eat, but I can't accurately measure calories since I don't have a fitbit, etc.
S
Were you including your intentional exercise when you chose "moderate"? If so, then don't count your exercise again -- that would be double-dipping. MFP means for your activity level to be your regular life before intentional exercise. But if you decide to bundle it in, just don't log your exercise. Ifyou got a calorie goal of 1,200 for moderate activity, I'm wondering if your weekly weight loss goal is too aggressive.
Calories burned will have to vary by person and per exercise to be accurate. You and I would potentially burn different calories during the same activity for the same amount of time, because we're different. That said, there are some more accurate ways to measure calories burnt.
3 -
Were you including your intentional exercise when you chose "moderate"? If so, then don't count your exercise again -- that would be double-dipping. MFP means for your activity level to be your regular life before intentional exercise. But if you decide to bundle it in, just don't log your exercise. Ifyou got a calorie goal of 1,200 for moderate activity, I'm wondering if your weekly weight loss goal is too aggressive.
Ah, I see! Yes, I was including it; that seemed to be common sense! It asks your level of activity when you start, so I put moderate.
Pre-quarantine I would do one yoga or pilates class 1x week and HIIT cardio 1x week, I walk and bike around a lot.
I chose "moderate" because when I started logging with MFP I had been exercising every day for about the last five days prior. But now my only exercise is intentional, if you will, since I don't often leave my house, but it has (as I wrote before) been 6 days/week for the last two weeks.
"Don't count your exercise again" - how about I change the activity level to "sedentary"? Would that then compensate for the exercise?
"Ifyou got a calorie goal of 1,200 for moderate activity, I'm wondering if your weekly weight loss goal is too aggressive."
In the app I put my goal as losing 12 lb at 1 lb per week.Calories burned will have to vary by person and per exercise to be accurate. You and I would potentially burn different calories during the same activity for the same amount of time, because we're different. That said, there are some more accurate ways to measure calories burnt.
Do you have some suggestions of how to record more accurately?
0 -
chlssddd445 wrote: »Were you including your intentional exercise when you chose "moderate"? If so, then don't count your exercise again -- that would be double-dipping. MFP means for your activity level to be your regular life before intentional exercise. But if you decide to bundle it in, just don't log your exercise. Ifyou got a calorie goal of 1,200 for moderate activity, I'm wondering if your weekly weight loss goal is too aggressive.
Ah, I see! Yes, I was including it; that seemed to be common sense! It asks your level of activity when you start, so I put moderate.
I was a light exerciser (pre-quarantine) with one yoga or pilates class 1x week and HIIT cardio 1x week, I walk a lot.
I chose "moderate" because when I started logging with MFP I had been exercising every day for about the last five days prior. But now my only exercise is intentional, if you will, since I don't often leave my house, but it has (as I wrote before) been 6 days/week.
"Don't count your exercise again" - how about I change the activity level to "sedentary"? Would that then compensate for the exercise?Calories burned will have to vary by person and per exercise to be accurate. You and I would potentially burn different calories during the same activity for the same amount of time, because we're different. That said, there are some more accurate ways to measure calories burnt.
Do you have some suggestions of how to record more accurately?
Yes, if your overall life is sedentary (prior to intentional exercise), then that is what I would choose for your activity level. Lots of people include their exercise at first -- it's just the default way that most of us think, right?
I use a Fitbit to estimate my calories, which I understand you don't have right now. It's okay to use the exercise database on here as well. Some people will begin by just eating back a portion of the calories on the database (say 50% or 75% to account for any potential over-estimation). Then they'll make adjustments over time (say, six weeks or so) if they find they are losing faster or slower than they expect. The important thing is just to choose a method and stick with it for long enough to have some good data so you can make the right adjustments.2 -
Yes, if your overall life is sedentary (prior to intentional exercise), then that is what I would choose for your activity level. Lots of people include their exercise at first -- it's just the default way that most of us think, right?
I use a Fitbit to estimate my calories, which I understand you don't have right now. It's okay to use the exercise database on here as well. Some people will begin by just eating back a portion of the calories on the database (say 50% or 75% to account for any potential over-estimation). Then they'll make adjustments over time (say, six weeks or so) if they find they are losing faster or slower than they expect. The important thing is just to choose a method and stick with it for long enough to have some good data so you can make the right adjustments.
Ah, this makes more sense. I would get a Fitbit, but I read they are up to 20% inaccurate. What you suggest—eating back just a portion—makes sense to try. But it's hard psychologically to deal with the temptation of those green numbers to eat!! I would be happy if I just maintained a calorie deficit even if it took me longer to lose weight. I am trying to destabilize a pattern of emotional eating. Thanks for your advice!0 -
chlssddd445 wrote: »
Yes, if your overall life is sedentary (prior to intentional exercise), then that is what I would choose for your activity level. Lots of people include their exercise at first -- it's just the default way that most of us think, right?
I use a Fitbit to estimate my calories, which I understand you don't have right now. It's okay to use the exercise database on here as well. Some people will begin by just eating back a portion of the calories on the database (say 50% or 75% to account for any potential over-estimation). Then they'll make adjustments over time (say, six weeks or so) if they find they are losing faster or slower than they expect. The important thing is just to choose a method and stick with it for long enough to have some good data so you can make the right adjustments.
Ah, this makes more sense. I would get a Fitbit, but I read they are up to 20% inaccurate. What you suggest—eating back just a portion—makes sense to try. But it's hard psychologically to deal with the temptation of those green numbers to eat!! I would be happy if I just maintained a calorie deficit even if it took me longer to lose weight. I am trying to destabilize a pattern of emotional eating. Thanks for your advice!
Results vary, but I've personally found my Fitbit to be very accurate (and I know there are some people here with the same experience, as well as those who find that it over- or under-estimates their calorie burn). Any method you choose has the potential to be inaccurate, so there's really no need to spend the extra money unless it's something that you want to do. Good luck!2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »chlssddd445 wrote: »
Yes, if your overall life is sedentary (prior to intentional exercise), then that is what I would choose for your activity level. Lots of people include their exercise at first -- it's just the default way that most of us think, right?
I use a Fitbit to estimate my calories, which I understand you don't have right now. It's okay to use the exercise database on here as well. Some people will begin by just eating back a portion of the calories on the database (say 50% or 75% to account for any potential over-estimation). Then they'll make adjustments over time (say, six weeks or so) if they find they are losing faster or slower than they expect. The important thing is just to choose a method and stick with it for long enough to have some good data so you can make the right adjustments.
Ah, this makes more sense. I would get a Fitbit, but I read they are up to 20% inaccurate. What you suggest—eating back just a portion—makes sense to try. But it's hard psychologically to deal with the temptation of those green numbers to eat!! I would be happy if I just maintained a calorie deficit even if it took me longer to lose weight. I am trying to destabilize a pattern of emotional eating. Thanks for your advice!
Results vary, but I've personally found my Fitbit to be very accurate (and I know there are some people here with the same experience, as well as those who find that it over- or under-estimates their calorie burn). Any method you choose has the potential to be inaccurate, so there's really no need to spend the extra money unless it's something that you want to do. Good luck!
Out of curiosity, which model do you have?0 -
chlssddd445 wrote: »
Yes, if your overall life is sedentary (prior to intentional exercise), then that is what I would choose for your activity level. Lots of people include their exercise at first -- it's just the default way that most of us think, right?
I use a Fitbit to estimate my calories, which I understand you don't have right now. It's okay to use the exercise database on here as well. Some people will begin by just eating back a portion of the calories on the database (say 50% or 75% to account for any potential over-estimation). Then they'll make adjustments over time (say, six weeks or so) if they find they are losing faster or slower than they expect. The important thing is just to choose a method and stick with it for long enough to have some good data so you can make the right adjustments.
Ah, this makes more sense. I would get a Fitbit, but I read they are up to 20% inaccurate. What you suggest—eating back just a portion—makes sense to try. But it's hard psychologically to deal with the temptation of those green numbers to eat!! I would be happy if I just maintained a calorie deficit even if it took me longer to lose weight. I am trying to destabilize a pattern of emotional eating. Thanks for your advice!
The intention of the calorie goal is for you to eat as close as you can to the number; you aren't supposed to undercut it by a huge margin. So if your calorie goal is 1200 at sedentary and you exercise enough to gain 300 calories, you really are supposed to eat as close as you can get to 1500; the green numbers really are okay to eat, as long as you are accounting for things properly. There doesn't need to be any fight with your mental self over it.
So it's not really a temptation at all, and there's no need for you to fight yourself - limit yourself to that calorie goal and don't exceed it; that's how the set up is designed. Set your calorie goal appropriately - either sedentary, count all exercise, and eat back a portion of those exercise calories, or set to moderate understanding that exercise calories are already included so don't record exercise, which won't give the extra calories. Give it a couple of weeks, and adjust as necessary to keep yourself to your rate goal. If you find you are being hungry at your current rate, then lower it down - so if 1 lb a week turns out to be too aggressive, its a good idea to drop it to 0.5 lb.
To keep from getting too many exercise calories recorded, don't count all of what you do - for instance, if you do HIIT for 40 minutes and intend to only eat back half of the exercise calories to cover error margins, then only record 20 minutes, not all 40. That way you only get the additional calories you intended to have, and you aren't having to mentally fight with yourself to keep from eating the whole allotment.1 -
So it's not really a temptation at all, and there's no need for you to fight yourself - limit yourself to that calorie goal and don't exceed it; that's how the set up is designed. Set your calorie goal appropriately - either sedentary, count all exercise, and eat back a portion of those exercise calories, or set to moderate understanding that exercise calories are already included so don't record exercise, which won't give the extra calories. Give it a couple of weeks, and adjust as necessary to keep yourself to your rate goal. If you find you are being hungry at your current rate, then lower it down - so if 1 lb a week turns out to be too aggressive, its a good idea to drop it to 0.5 lb.
It's easier for me to actually count what exercises I do, versus just putting "moderate" in because I have no idea what that influences or means. It has been "moderate" and I'm logging all exercises and eating fairly successfully around the 1,200 net goal that includes exercise. But I guess that means I've been double dipping, and my records have so far been inaccurate so... I will change the status to "not very active" and keep counting exercise calories mindful that they may be over.0 -
chlssddd445 wrote: »
Yes, if your overall life is sedentary (prior to intentional exercise), then that is what I would choose for your activity level. Lots of people include their exercise at first -- it's just the default way that most of us think, right?
I use a Fitbit to estimate my calories, which I understand you don't have right now. It's okay to use the exercise database on here as well. Some people will begin by just eating back a portion of the calories on the database (say 50% or 75% to account for any potential over-estimation). Then they'll make adjustments over time (say, six weeks or so) if they find they are losing faster or slower than they expect. The important thing is just to choose a method and stick with it for long enough to have some good data so you can make the right adjustments.
Ah, this makes more sense. I would get a Fitbit, but I read they are up to 20% inaccurate. What you suggest—eating back just a portion—makes sense to try. But it's hard psychologically to deal with the temptation of those green numbers to eat!! I would be happy if I just maintained a calorie deficit even if it took me longer to lose weight. I am trying to destabilize a pattern of emotional eating. Thanks for your advice!
This may be a little challenging to believe, so I hope you'll bear with me as I try to explain . . . but it may not matter if a device is 20% off from accuracy.
Here's why:
Usually, what we recommend is for new MFP users to set up their profile as accurately as possible (without obsessing about it
), believe the calorie goal they get, log consistently/carefullyand add some consistent fraction of exercise calories. (Zero would always be wrong, y'know, as long as the base activity level was normal daily life stuff before intentional exercise, which is what the MFP instructions recommend).
Then, we suggest they monitor their weight for 4-6 weeks. For adult women not in menopause yet, they should compare the same relative point in at least two different menstrual cycles. Sometimes the first week or two are wildly different from the later weeks (because water weight weirdness initially, plus changes in typical digestive system contents, can make that happen - loss can appear either slower or faster at first). I personally suggest ignoring an initial wildly-different week or two, and using 4+ weeks after that. With the usable weeks, calculate average weekly weight loss rate.
If that average weekly loss is too slow (but you still have room to lose faster without excessive health risk), you then eat a little bit less. If loss is too fast, you eat a little bit more. Usually, a round or two of "stick with it for 4-6 weeks, average, and adjust" method is enough to dial in a good weight loss process that's tailored to you personally.
So, within the framework of that approach, a fitness tracker (or the MFP exercise database, or outside sport-specific calorie estimator) - anything that will give you a consistent and non-crazy estimate - should work fine, because you experiment and adjust intake to get the results you need.
Fitness trackers' all-day calorie estimates can be useful, even if they're not correct, too. Because they produce a personally-tailored estimate that varies with activity, we can compare them to our actual results, and adjust as needed. For example, my fitness tracker dramatically under-estimates my all-day calorie burn. It's several hundred calories low! (It's a Garmin Vivoactive 3, a device that other people here have found accurate for them, BTW. It's me who's weird. )
I don't bother to synch my device to MFP, because I already had my personal calorie needs pretty well figured out before I got it. (I'm in year 4+ of maintenance now, and was probably in year 3 when I got this device.) But, having compared it to my actual weight results, I can see that I could apply a standard percentage adjustment to it on a daily basis, and come pretty close to my actual needs.
If one is using a device, but only for the exercise calorie portion, 20% inaccuracy is almost meaningless arithmetically. Think about it: All this stuff is estimates, from your daily life calories to every food. They're all a little bit inaccurate. One apple is sweeter than the next, we forget to log a dab of butter, we do some extra unlogged yard work one day, whatever. It all kind of averages out, some stuff high, other stuff low, and the exercise piece is pretty tiny in the big picture.
For example, you mention 1200 calories as base, and doing 100-230 calories of exercise. Let's take the high end of your exercise calories. Let's assume that error is 20% either high or low (though it may be 20% total, i.e., plus or minus 10% - I didn't read the study.) 20% of 230 would be 46 calories. Forty six. Less than 4% of your daily base calorie allowance. Around 1.3 teaspoons of butter, or a couple of crackers. Like walking around for maybe 20 minutes window shopping at the mall.
So, the actual exercise calories in this extreme case could be anything between 184 to 286 calories. You therefore eat 1384 to 1430 calories. If you're accurately targeting a pound a week of weight loss, you have a 500 calorie daily deficit. If you eat 46 calories "too many" every single day, what happens? You lose weight, but just a tiny bit more slowly. Over the course of about a year and a half (76 weeks), you lose one pound less than if your exercise estimate were correct. If 46 calories "too few" every day, you lose an extra pound in a year and a half.
Really, really: This kind of stuff isn't worth stressing or obsessing over. Follow the process, adjust your intake (once you have enough data) based on results, and don't worry about trivial errors here or there. It's not worth it.
Best wishes!
2 -
Thanks everyone for all this info. I understand it's a process in the beginning to figure it out. I feel bad that I've done it inaccurately so far, but... I must ask what difference does it make to mark yourself "moderate" vs "lightly active" vs "sedentary" from the beginning?0
-
Marking a higher activity level adds more calories to your base calorie number. Relatively few people (at least when not "sheltering in place") are so truly sedentary that sedentary/not very active is the closest setting. Most people run errands, do chores at home, maybe have kids to take care of, etc., and get past that threshold (which is probably somewhere in the 3000-5000 steps range, though steps aren't the only daily-life thing that burns calories).
You can experiment with your settings, and see how the different levels change your calorie goal.
It's really not worth a bundle of worry, though. Just pick a reasonable setting, follow that calorie goal (plus reasonable exercise calories) for 4-6 weeks, and adjust if needed based on results.
I have to set myself as "active" in order to get close to the right number of base calories, even though I frequently get less than 5000 steps, and 2000 or less isn't unheard of. Most people burn about the number of calories MFP expects at a reasonably-accurate activity level setting; a very rare person may not find that to be true (as I don't).
Just pick a setting, and run the experiment.0 -
chlssddd445 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »chlssddd445 wrote: »
Yes, if your overall life is sedentary (prior to intentional exercise), then that is what I would choose for your activity level. Lots of people include their exercise at first -- it's just the default way that most of us think, right?
I use a Fitbit to estimate my calories, which I understand you don't have right now. It's okay to use the exercise database on here as well. Some people will begin by just eating back a portion of the calories on the database (say 50% or 75% to account for any potential over-estimation). Then they'll make adjustments over time (say, six weeks or so) if they find they are losing faster or slower than they expect. The important thing is just to choose a method and stick with it for long enough to have some good data so you can make the right adjustments.
Ah, this makes more sense. I would get a Fitbit, but I read they are up to 20% inaccurate. What you suggest—eating back just a portion—makes sense to try. But it's hard psychologically to deal with the temptation of those green numbers to eat!! I would be happy if I just maintained a calorie deficit even if it took me longer to lose weight. I am trying to destabilize a pattern of emotional eating. Thanks for your advice!
Results vary, but I've personally found my Fitbit to be very accurate (and I know there are some people here with the same experience, as well as those who find that it over- or under-estimates their calorie burn). Any method you choose has the potential to be inaccurate, so there's really no need to spend the extra money unless it's something that you want to do. Good luck!
Out of curiosity, which model do you have?
I have the Charge 2. They've just introduced the Charge 4 and I've read they're very similar.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I just want to say thank you for posting this thread! I totally thought my activity level should include intentional workouts.. wow what a difference.
Thank you!0 -
MeganD1704 wrote: »I just want to say thank you for posting this thread! I totally thought my activity level should include intentional workouts.. wow what a difference.
Thank you!
For clarification: It's fine to do it either way. What's important, IMO, is to avoid confusing the two.
If someone prefers to use the standard MFP method ("NEAT method"), they should let MFP set their initial calorie goal, using an activity level that does not include intentional exercise. They should then log exercise, and eat back a reasonable fraction of those calories in addition to the base calorie goal (or bank/average the extra calories over the week or so).
Some people prefer to have the same calorie goal every day, and that's fine, too. The best route for this, in the MFP environment, would be to use an outside TDEE calculator to get a calorie goal that includes planned exercise, and set their calorie goal manually in MFP. (The TDEE calculators usually use different activity multipliers, and sometimes have more activity levels, to facilitate better estimates in this scenario. MFP wasn't really designed for this.) Someone who does this is still "eating their exercise", it's just averaged in over time. That does make consistency in completing planned exercise really important, though: It would be possible to wipe out a TDEE calculated deficit by skipping exercise. (Also, it's really, really nice if these people would not come in to "should I eat my exercise calories" thread and drop a "I don't, and lost fine" without more clarification. 🙄)
Either way can work. What one doesn't want to do is use an MFP estimate in a way it wasn't intended (setting MFP activity level to include exercise; or setting based on daily life but with an aggressive loss goal then not eating back exercise), or add exercise on top of a TDEE estimate that already implicitly included exercise (double counting the exercise).
On either of those routes, the "stick with it 4-6 weeks, then adjust" idea still applies, because it's all estimates. 2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 442 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions