Overestimating Exercise Calories
nurabh94
Posts: 38 Member
Does anyone else find that MFP grossly over estimates the calories burned from exercise? It makes it impossible to reach my calories for the day because it is overestimating them (and then MFP won’t save my diary or give me projections). If I burned what it said I did I wouldn’t need to be losing so much weight as my workout regime has remained pretty much the same!! Should I just stop logging my exercise??
1
Replies
-
Choose "light/low/slow" options and round down your exercise time.
So ... I walk at "10.5 mins per km, brisk pace" but I choose "12.5 mins per km, mod. pace"
And I might walk for 67 minutes, but quite often I'll round down to 60 min.
You can enter whatever you want, so if it seems high, enter something to make it a bit lower.4 -
Does anyone else find that MFP grossly over estimates the calories burned from exercise? It makes it impossible to reach my calories for the day because it is overestimating them (and then MFP won’t save my diary or give me projections). If I burned what it said I did I wouldn’t need to be losing so much weight as my workout regime has remained pretty much the same!! Should I just stop logging my exercise??
If you think it's too high, consider eating back a standard percentage - like 50% or 75% - consistently for a month, log food accurately, too, then adjust your intake based on average weight loss in that month.
To the bolded: That would be exactly the one exercise calorie estimate guaranteed to be wrong, wouldn't it, because you know for sure it doesn't burn zero?
The benefit of figuring out exercise calories is that you know fairly accurately what your calorie needs are both with and without exercise. That means that if you suddenly can't get much exercise for a while for some reason (long hours at a job, heaven forbid broken ankle or somesuch, etc.), you can still manage your weight without exercise. That would be a good thing, right?
P.S. In my experience, the MFP estimates - which are primarily research-based, BTW - are for me reasonable for some activities, and not reasonable for others. There are a lot of variables. The underlying research and estimation methodology it's using (METS) has more applicability to some exercises than others. And since individual METS values in general come from individual research studies, some of those studies will have been better conducted than others.
Personally, I try to figure out the best method available and practical for each exercise I do, then use those estimating methods consistently. It's been working for almost 5 years now, for me, obese to a healthy weight in the first year, then staying at a healthy weight since - including some periods where I didn't exercise much at all for a month or so (surgical recovery, for example)8 -
Could you give an example of the exercise and how many calories it says you burn? You are able to manually change the calories...or you could log it as something lighter, like "aerobics, low impact" or "walking 3.0". But it would be helpful to see exactly what you are talking about.1
-
The "4.0 mph walk" definitely overestimates for me. I gained weight when I followed the calorie amount it said I was burning. Now for the past few months I cut the calorie burn it suggests in half and I am maintaining my weight. Really I should be losing so even that I wonder if it is still overestimating somewhat.0
-
I use Google Fit to log exercises, the calories always automatically transfer over higher. For example if I road my bike and burned 250 cals through google fit it will show up as a 378 cals burned (rough estimate) on here.0
-
I don't eat my workout calories though so it doesn't bother me. I have just noticed it.0
-
To be honest, I have heard others say this, but I have never noticed it myself. Could it be you are not logging as accurately as you think your exercise? Some that refer to "effort" for example, are rather misleading, since "effort" does not matter. I can feel for example like dying by jogging at 6 km/h right now, but despite me feeling I am doing something exhausting, it is still a pace so slow it barely classifies as running. Or for some exercise routines , I guess MFP assumes a certain rythme or certain pattern of breaks, that might not be standard for all people, e.g. you can do a circuit training routine for 40 minutes with 90 seconds per exercise, 10 seconds to switch and 30 second break per 5 sets, while another person does for 40 minutes 40 seconds per exercise, 20 seconds to swithch, 60 seconds break every 3 sets. Both might log 40 mins circuit training, but they did not burn the same.1
-
Wait! Does MFP refuse to safe if you eat 1200 calories and log a workout of say 300 calories and don't eat it back? I thought it only did this for just under eating. I'm certain I might have done that a few times in the past without problems. TO, how many calories are you consuming each day?0
-
If you think it's too high, consider eating back a standard percentage - like 50% or 75% - consistently for a month, log food accurately, too, then adjust your intake based on average weight loss in that month.
This is what I do. I aim to use less then half my exercise cals a day. This is my first week doing it so I'm not being to hard on myself if a use more but I have found this effective so far.1 -
Wait! Does MFP refuse to safe if you eat 1200 calories and log a workout of say 300 calories and don't eat it back? I thought it only did this for just under eating. I'm certain I might have done that a few times in the past without problems. TO, how many calories are you consuming each day?
And @nurabh94 ... how many calories do you think you're burning?0 -
It would help if you actually stated what exercise you do.
Which of the hundreds of database entries you select, what calories you get etc. etc.
I would say that based on observation over many years food estimating inaccuracy is a far bigger contributor to weight loss results not matching expectations.
"Does anyone else find that MFP grossly over estimates the calories burned from exercise?"
Well sort of because the estimates are gross estimates (including what you would have burned in that time slot anyway rather than net calories (the additional calories burned from your exercise only).
But keep in mind that isn't a percentage - it's a flat amount based on time, I use the approximate amount of 100cal/hr to correct but that's a personal number (roughly 1/24th of my non-exercise day maintenance amount).
My most common selections would be strength training, cycling and walking.
Strength training - probably works out to be pretty good despite being a gross estimate as I tend to lift a fairly high volume. Perfectly usable for purpose for me.
Cycling - pretty poor and speed ranges really aren't a good metric for calorie burns. If I used the "Bicycling, 16-20 mph, very fast (cycling, biking, bike riding)" database entry it's most likely to be 50% too high much of the time (note you would take 33% off the estimate not 50% to correct). Luckily I have a very accurate method to estimate my burns so I overwrite MFP's estimate with my own.
Walking - about 40% too high for an hour but that's only because it's a gross estimate. If I take 100cals/hour off to correct from gross 254cals for walking 3 miles at 3mph to net calories it now becomes very believable 154cals which almost perfectly matches the common formula of bodyweight in lbs X miles walked X 0.03 efficiency ratio for net cals.
I'm not a fan of taking random percentages off a database with a huge range of estimating accuracy/inaccuracy - that's really just making the number smaller and not more accurate. The advantage is simplicity but for most people it doesn't take much effort to think about estimating their exercise better rather than relying on luck.
3 -
Wait! Does MFP refuse to safe if you eat 1200 calories and log a workout of say 300 calories and don't eat it back? I thought it only did this for just under eating. I'm certain I might have done that a few times in the past without problems. TO, how many calories are you consuming each day?
And @nurabh94 ... how many calories do you think you're burning?
I’m eating less than 1,200 calories based on my height and the amount I need to lose but more than 1,000 on average I think.
I would guess on average I probably burn around 300 from exercise alone, but MFP sometimes puts it up to 1,000. I’m buying a Fitbit on payday to get more accurate results and hope this finds a happy medium!DancingMoosie wrote: »Could you give an example of the exercise and how many calories it says you burn? You are able to manually change the calories...or you could log it as something lighter, like "aerobics, low impact" or "walking 3.0". But it would be helpful to see exactly what you are talking about.
I do HIIT twice a week (average 30 mins?), aerobic low impact exercises for about 40 mins a day (this is new and wasn’t part of my routine), and yoga at least three times a week usually an hour each, at least one session is visyana yoga which I guess works on strength. My biggest thing is I roller skate for fun but when I tried to log it it has it as 15 mins of roller skating to be burning over 100 calories, which just doesn’t sound right to me!!! There was one day when my exercise came to 1,000 calories but I just can’t believe that even when I downplay the effort and time. I don’t log walking!
I’m hoping when I get a Fitbit I’ll get more accurate results and until then only eat back maybe 25%-50% of exercise calories depending on how hungry I am so as not to hinder progress. I’m not very good at maths or understanding the intricacies of calories etc. As am pretty fresh but the numbers seem too big to be realistic.0 -
Wait! Does MFP refuse to safe if you eat 1200 calories and log a workout of say 300 calories and don't eat it back? I thought it only did this for just under eating. I'm certain I might have done that a few times in the past without problems. TO, how many calories are you consuming each day?
And @nurabh94 ... how many calories do you think you're burning?
I’m eating less than 1,200 calories based on my height and the amount I need to lose but more than 1,000 on average I think.
I would guess on average I probably burn around 300 from exercise alone, but MFP sometimes puts it up to 1,000. I’m buying a Fitbit on payday to get more accurate results and hope this finds a happy medium!DancingMoosie wrote: »Could you give an example of the exercise and how many calories it says you burn? You are able to manually change the calories...or you could log it as something lighter, like "aerobics, low impact" or "walking 3.0". But it would be helpful to see exactly what you are talking about.
I do HIIT twice a week (average 30 mins?), aerobic low impact exercises for about 40 mins a day (this is new and wasn’t part of my routine), and yoga at least three times a week usually an hour each, at least one session is visyana yoga which I guess works on strength. My biggest thing is I roller skate for fun but when I tried to log it it has it as 15 mins of roller skating to be burning over 100 calories, which just doesn’t sound right to me!!! There was one day when my exercise came to 1,000 calories but I just can’t believe that even when I downplay the effort and time. I don’t log walking!
I’m hoping when I get a Fitbit I’ll get more accurate results and until then only eat back maybe 25%-50% of exercise calories depending on how hungry I am so as not to hinder progress. I’m not very good at maths or understanding the intricacies of calories etc. As am pretty fresh but the numbers seem too big to be realistic.
Especially given that last paragraph, I'd point out that even Fitbits (or other trackers) are just giving you an estimate, not a measurement. It's just that it's a personalized estimate, which does offer some advantages, depending on exercise mode.
It matters a little what model/type you get, when you think about what it might be good or not great at estimating, but the HIIT for sure would be something that most trackers are unlikely to estimate very accurately.
Now, before someone chimes in with "but I lost weight fine using my tracker to estimate HIIT": I agree with @sijomial that mis-estimated exercise often gets blamed when something else is actually at play. Sometimes particular people have unreasonably high faith in parts of this picture, parts that can also be a source of variation (error). I'd go broader than he did on the potential error sources, which include:
* Person differs from average in some (unknown) way, so the base BMR estimate is materially wrong.
* Wrong activity factor selected, or selected in such a way that causes double-counting
* Fitness tracker/heart rate monitor limitations (this has subcategories of error potential but I won't go into it here)
* Imprecise food logging despite best efforts
* . . . or combinations, and more.
IMU, he's correct that MFP gives a gross calorie estimate when we'd really prefer a net estimate, but in practice, for common levels of common exercises, that difference may not be a big deal in context. (I'm not going to go into details/examples, just for reply length).
Unlike sijomial, I often suggest people start with eating back 50-70% of exercise calories if they worry about them being overestimated, but (in line with his thinking) I'm not doing this because I think it's theoretically correct. I know it's completely arbitrary. I do it because it's a simple way to get people to eat back some exercise calories, which is a health-promoting approach for anyone using a MFP-estimate calorie goal, especially if targeting an aggressive weight loss rate in the first place. Zero is the exercise calorie estimate that is always wrong, and it can in some circumstances be risky to assume zero.
In reality, I think any discrepancy could be down to other things besides exercise, but explaining all the possible reasons is complex and potentially confusing, and the core objective is just to get someone to a sensible, risk-averse but successful loss rate in practice.
What I normally tell people is something like this: "If you're worried that exercise may be overestimated, start by estimating it with a consistent method, then eat back 50-75% of that. Stick with that for 4-6 weeks, then adjust your eating to get to the right safe but satisfying loss rate."
I don't tell people to "eat back more of the exercise", because the eating adjustment based on real results is the actual answer. The source of discrepancies could be anything. In most senses, exercise calories aren't any different from tooth-brushing calories or grocery-shopping calories. The main differences are that (1) exercise is more variable in many people's lives than daily routine stuff, and (2) many beginner calorie counters start with aggressive exercise plans that peter out after enthusiasm fades, realistically. Calorie counting the MFP way, as NEAT+exercise, helps people avoid that 2nd pitfall, as compared with using a TDEE method.
Now, no one should be freaking out because I said all of these estimates are fraught with errors. In a literal sense, they are error-prone.
But as a practical matter, some tend to err on the high side, others on the low side, plus most are numerically minor in the big picture. We have so many estimates and observations in the mix that errors tend to cancel each other out. It all works well enough to be practical and successful. Trying to be as accurate as possible is still a helpful strategy. (If you were going on vacation with a map that didn't include all the sideroads, you wouldn't just drive willy-nilly cross country. You'd drive based on what you did know, not freak out about what you didn't, right?)2 -
Wait! Does MFP refuse to safe if you eat 1200 calories and log a workout of say 300 calories and don't eat it back? I thought it only did this for just under eating. I'm certain I might have done that a few times in the past without problems. TO, how many calories are you consuming each day?
But this is under eating. 1200 less 300 = 900. Do you think 900 calories is reasonable?
My Fitness Pal gave you 1200 calories based on your activity level before exercise (and your weekly weight loss goal). The reason exercise is added back is because it was not in the original calculation.
There's a video link in this thread: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/818082/exercise-calories-again-wtf/p10 -
I use the App Pacer and click GPS to accurately gauge my exercise calories and average speed. Whatever it tells me my calorie expenditure is, I log that into MFP and then eat back only 75% of those calories. I’m not losing very fast ( 4 pounds in five or six weeks) but if I cut any more than that I will be too hungry. I am only trying to lose ten and MFP allots me 1490. If I add exercise I usually get about 400 calories more.0
-
The break down of your workouts and calorie burns would be more helpful if you gave us a number for each exercise. For example, if I run 6 miles in an hour, mfp will give me about 500 calories burned so, to burn 1000 calories that day, I would need to run 2hrs. I do regularly workout 2 hrs in a day, but not 2hrs running, so I'm most likely burning less. The most accurate calorie burn numbers are going to be from steady state cardio. I then compare my other exercises to the steady state and see if the calorie burn estimates line up with perceived effort compared to the running. Lifting and yoga generally burn a lot less. Roller skating could burn 100 calories in 15 min, especially if you are sprinting, but not if just coasting or skating leisurely.1
-
Wait! Does MFP refuse to safe if you eat 1200 calories and log a workout of say 300 calories and don't eat it back? I thought it only did this for just under eating. I'm certain I might have done that a few times in the past without problems. TO, how many calories are you consuming each day?
But this is under eating. 1200 less 300 = 900. Do you think 900 calories is reasonable?
My Fitness Pal gave you 1200 calories based on your activity level before exercise (and your weekly weight loss goal). The reason exercise is added back is because it was not in the original calculation.
There's a video link in this thread: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/818082/exercise-calories-again-wtf/p1
Yes, I know. But TO has now confirmed she is undereating, even without exercise. TO, you're on a very slippery slope here. Eat properly. Your body needs the energy.0 -
Wait! Does MFP refuse to safe if you eat 1200 calories and log a workout of say 300 calories and don't eat it back? I thought it only did this for just under eating. I'm certain I might have done that a few times in the past without problems. TO, how many calories are you consuming each day?
And @nurabh94 ... how many calories do you think you're burning?
I’m eating less than 1,200 calories based on my height and the amount I need to lose but more than 1,000 on average I think.
I would guess on average I probably burn around 300 from exercise alone, but MFP sometimes puts it up to 1,000. I’m buying a Fitbit on payday to get more accurate results and hope this finds a happy medium!DancingMoosie wrote: »Could you give an example of the exercise and how many calories it says you burn? You are able to manually change the calories...or you could log it as something lighter, like "aerobics, low impact" or "walking 3.0". But it would be helpful to see exactly what you are talking about.
I do HIIT twice a week (average 30 mins?), aerobic low impact exercises for about 40 mins a day (this is new and wasn’t part of my routine), and yoga at least three times a week usually an hour each, at least one session is visyana yoga which I guess works on strength. My biggest thing is I roller skate for fun but when I tried to log it it has it as 15 mins of roller skating to be burning over 100 calories, which just doesn’t sound right to me!!! There was one day when my exercise came to 1,000 calories but I just can’t believe that even when I downplay the effort and time. I don’t log walking!
I’m hoping when I get a Fitbit I’ll get more accurate results and until then only eat back maybe 25%-50% of exercise calories depending on how hungry I am so as not to hinder progress. I’m not very good at maths or understanding the intricacies of calories etc. As am pretty fresh but the numbers seem too big to be realistic.
Especially given that last paragraph, I'd point out that even Fitbits (or other trackers) are just giving you an estimate, not a measurement. It's just that it's a personalized estimate, which does offer some advantages, depending on exercise mode.
It matters a little what model/type you get, when you think about what it might be good or not great at estimating, but the HIIT for sure would be something that most trackers are unlikely to estimate very accurately.
Now, before someone chimes in with "but I lost weight fine using my tracker to estimate HIIT": I agree with @sijomial that mis-estimated exercise often gets blamed when something else is actually at play. Sometimes particular people have unreasonably high faith in parts of this picture, parts that can also be a source of variation (error). I'd go broader than he did on the potential error sources, which include:
* Person differs from average in some (unknown) way, so the base BMR estimate is materially wrong.
* Wrong activity factor selected, or selected in such a way that causes double-counting
* Fitness tracker/heart rate monitor limitations (this has subcategories of error potential but I won't go into it here)
* Imprecise food logging despite best efforts
* . . . or combinations, and more.
IMU, he's correct that MFP gives a gross calorie estimate when we'd really prefer a net estimate, but in practice, for common levels of common exercises, that difference may not be a big deal in context. (I'm not going to go into details/examples, just for reply length).
Unlike sijomial, I often suggest people start with eating back 50-70% of exercise calories if they worry about them being overestimated, but (in line with his thinking) I'm not doing this because I think it's theoretically correct. I know it's completely arbitrary. I do it because it's a simple way to get people to eat back some exercise calories, which is a health-promoting approach for anyone using a MFP-estimate calorie goal, especially if targeting an aggressive weight loss rate in the first place. Zero is the exercise calorie estimate that is always wrong, and it can in some circumstances be risky to assume zero.
In reality, I think any discrepancy could be down to other things besides exercise, but explaining all the possible reasons is complex and potentially confusing, and the core objective is just to get someone to a sensible, risk-averse but successful loss rate in practice.
What I normally tell people is something like this: "If you're worried that exercise may be overestimated, start by estimating it with a consistent method, then eat back 50-75% of that. Stick with that for 4-6 weeks, then adjust your eating to get to the right safe but satisfying loss rate."
I don't tell people to "eat back more of the exercise", because the eating adjustment based on real results is the actual answer. The source of discrepancies could be anything. In most senses, exercise calories aren't any different from tooth-brushing calories or grocery-shopping calories. The main differences are that (1) exercise is more variable in many people's lives than daily routine stuff, and (2) many beginner calorie counters start with aggressive exercise plans that peter out after enthusiasm fades, realistically. Calorie counting the MFP way, as NEAT+exercise, helps people avoid that 2nd pitfall, as compared with using a TDEE method.
Now, no one should be freaking out because I said all of these estimates are fraught with errors. In a literal sense, they are error-prone.
But as a practical matter, some tend to err on the high side, others on the low side, plus most are numerically minor in the big picture. We have so many estimates and observations in the mix that errors tend to cancel each other out. It all works well enough to be practical and successful. Trying to be as accurate as possible is still a helpful strategy. (If you were going on vacation with a map that didn't include all the sideroads, you wouldn't just drive willy-nilly cross country. You'd drive based on what you did know, not freak out about what you didn't, right?)
Ooooh thank you for this!!! Those are some amazing analogies that really do help and I appreciate the advice so much!! I don’t think it’s a bad idea to try to eat back a portion of exercise calories and reevaluate in a couple of weeks so I’ll definitely do that and take it on board!0 -
Wait! Does MFP refuse to safe if you eat 1200 calories and log a workout of say 300 calories and don't eat it back? I thought it only did this for just under eating. I'm certain I might have done that a few times in the past without problems. TO, how many calories are you consuming each day?
But this is under eating. 1200 less 300 = 900. Do you think 900 calories is reasonable?
My Fitness Pal gave you 1200 calories based on your activity level before exercise (and your weekly weight loss goal). The reason exercise is added back is because it was not in the original calculation.
There's a video link in this thread: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/818082/exercise-calories-again-wtf/p1
I’ve never thought Of it like that!!! 900 sounds low!!0 -
I changed my MFP settings to not adjust the calorie intake for exercise. It was only after I did that that I started losing.0
-
I think the reality of it is the calorie intake is also underestimated. So, by not subtracting the calories burned from the daily intake, you end up about right. If you are hungry, eat and make a healthy choice. Track your progress and adjust.0
-
Wait! Does MFP refuse to safe if you eat 1200 calories and log a workout of say 300 calories and don't eat it back? I thought it only did this for just under eating. I'm certain I might have done that a few times in the past without problems. TO, how many calories are you consuming each day?
And @nurabh94 ... how many calories do you think you're burning?
I’m eating less than 1,200 calories based on my height and the amount I need to lose but more than 1,000 on average I think.
I would guess on average I probably burn around 300 from exercise alone, but MFP sometimes puts it up to 1,000. I’m buying a Fitbit on payday to get more accurate results and hope this finds a happy medium!DancingMoosie wrote: »Could you give an example of the exercise and how many calories it says you burn? You are able to manually change the calories...or you could log it as something lighter, like "aerobics, low impact" or "walking 3.0". But it would be helpful to see exactly what you are talking about.
I do HIIT twice a week (average 30 mins?), aerobic low impact exercises for about 40 mins a day (this is new and wasn’t part of my routine), and yoga at least three times a week usually an hour each, at least one session is visyana yoga which I guess works on strength. My biggest thing is I roller skate for fun but when I tried to log it it has it as 15 mins of roller skating to be burning over 100 calories, which just doesn’t sound right to me!!! There was one day when my exercise came to 1,000 calories but I just can’t believe that even when I downplay the effort and time. I don’t log walking!
I’m hoping when I get a Fitbit I’ll get more accurate results and until then only eat back maybe 25%-50% of exercise calories depending on how hungry I am so as not to hinder progress. I’m not very good at maths or understanding the intricacies of calories etc. As am pretty fresh but the numbers seem too big to be realistic.
Especially given that last paragraph, I'd point out that even Fitbits (or other trackers) are just giving you an estimate, not a measurement. It's just that it's a personalized estimate, which does offer some advantages, depending on exercise mode.
It matters a little what model/type you get, when you think about what it might be good or not great at estimating, but the HIIT for sure would be something that most trackers are unlikely to estimate very accurately.
Now, before someone chimes in with "but I lost weight fine using my tracker to estimate HIIT": I agree with @sijomial that mis-estimated exercise often gets blamed when something else is actually at play. Sometimes particular people have unreasonably high faith in parts of this picture, parts that can also be a source of variation (error). I'd go broader than he did on the potential error sources, which include:
* Person differs from average in some (unknown) way, so the base BMR estimate is materially wrong.
* Wrong activity factor selected, or selected in such a way that causes double-counting
* Fitness tracker/heart rate monitor limitations (this has subcategories of error potential but I won't go into it here)
* Imprecise food logging despite best efforts
* . . . or combinations, and more.
IMU, he's correct that MFP gives a gross calorie estimate when we'd really prefer a net estimate, but in practice, for common levels of common exercises, that difference may not be a big deal in context. (I'm not going to go into details/examples, just for reply length).
Unlike sijomial, I often suggest people start with eating back 50-70% of exercise calories if they worry about them being overestimated, but (in line with his thinking) I'm not doing this because I think it's theoretically correct. I know it's completely arbitrary. I do it because it's a simple way to get people to eat back some exercise calories, which is a health-promoting approach for anyone using a MFP-estimate calorie goal, especially if targeting an aggressive weight loss rate in the first place. Zero is the exercise calorie estimate that is always wrong, and it can in some circumstances be risky to assume zero.
In reality, I think any discrepancy could be down to other things besides exercise, but explaining all the possible reasons is complex and potentially confusing, and the core objective is just to get someone to a sensible, risk-averse but successful loss rate in practice.
What I normally tell people is something like this: "If you're worried that exercise may be overestimated, start by estimating it with a consistent method, then eat back 50-75% of that. Stick with that for 4-6 weeks, then adjust your eating to get to the right safe but satisfying loss rate."
I don't tell people to "eat back more of the exercise", because the eating adjustment based on real results is the actual answer. The source of discrepancies could be anything. In most senses, exercise calories aren't any different from tooth-brushing calories or grocery-shopping calories. The main differences are that (1) exercise is more variable in many people's lives than daily routine stuff, and (2) many beginner calorie counters start with aggressive exercise plans that peter out after enthusiasm fades, realistically. Calorie counting the MFP way, as NEAT+exercise, helps people avoid that 2nd pitfall, as compared with using a TDEE method.
Now, no one should be freaking out because I said all of these estimates are fraught with errors. In a literal sense, they are error-prone.
But as a practical matter, some tend to err on the high side, others on the low side, plus most are numerically minor in the big picture. We have so many estimates and observations in the mix that errors tend to cancel each other out. It all works well enough to be practical and successful. Trying to be as accurate as possible is still a helpful strategy. (If you were going on vacation with a map that didn't include all the sideroads, you wouldn't just drive willy-nilly cross country. You'd drive based on what you did know, not freak out about what you didn't, right?)
Ooooh thank you for this!!! Those are some amazing analogies that really do help and I appreciate the advice so much!! I don’t think it’s a bad idea to try to eat back a portion of exercise calories and reevaluate in a couple of weeks so I’ll definitely do that and take it on board!
Stick with it for 4-6 weeks, then re-evaluate. Weight loss is not linear, it will be higher some weeks, lower others (maybe even an occasional week when end of week weight is higher than the beginning, and falsely look like fat gain when no such gain is happening). If you're a pre-menopausal woman, you want to be comparing your body weight at the same relative point in at least two different menstrual cycles.
I'm thinking you might benefit from reading this:
https://physiqonomics.com/the-weird-and-highly-annoying-world-of-scale-weight-and-fluctuations
It's pretty common around here to see people make a change in eating or exercise, try it for a week or two, not see the results they want in the too-brief trial, switch things up again, monitor for too-short time again, repeat-repeat-repeat. etc. It's a cycle that leads to extremes of frustration and emotional drama: It sometimes makes people give up. Even if they don't quit, they never develop a personal strategy and routine that's going to carry them into successful long-term weight maintenance.
I get that it's frustrating not to see quick results. But losing any meaningful amount of weight is a multi-week (often multi-month, maybe in some cases multi-year) proposition. Figuring out a sensible, sustainable, easy-as-possible approach that works for you personally . . . that's the golden ticket, in this situation.
It's worth investing a little patience and discipline at the beginning (when our storehouse of determination tends to be higher ) in order to find a good process that's practical, sustainable, and that works.
2 -
JessWill2020220 wrote: »I don't eat my workout calories though so it doesn't bother me. I have just noticed it.
Same here. I noticed while cycling the calories showing on the bikke were half of what MFP reported. I had to manually add the exercise calories when I added it to MFP. But I just log the calories burned and don't eat them back.0 -
Wait! Does MFP refuse to safe if you eat 1200 calories and log a workout of say 300 calories and don't eat it back? I thought it only did this for just under eating. I'm certain I might have done that a few times in the past without problems. TO, how many calories are you consuming each day?
But this is under eating. 1200 less 300 = 900. Do you think 900 calories is reasonable?
My Fitness Pal gave you 1200 calories based on your activity level before exercise (and your weekly weight loss goal). The reason exercise is added back is because it was not in the original calculation.
There's a video link in this thread: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/818082/exercise-calories-again-wtf/p1
I’ve never thought Of it like that!!! 900 sounds low!!
It is.
1200 is considered safe low for average sedentary woman to get enough nutrients in and provide enough base calories for body that is obviously burning calories merely to keep you alive.
Are you sedentary? Want to be average and get bare bones for only safety level, not performance for exercise to change body?
Body is probably burning more that 1200 actually just to keep you alive if sleeping all day.
Guess what a body will do if it feels stressed and threatened with low calories - slow you down, slow hair/nail/skin growth, not keep itself as warm - for a woman other calorie intense functions.
So yes - if your exercise really does burn 300 calories, that means there is only 900 left for rest of the daily functions.
And you might have burned 2300 that day in total (2000 is avg sedentary woman burn rate), so only eating 1200 in total is a big deficit. Stored fat being called on for most of that difference of course.
Something will start to lose it eventually if that is kept up consistently. And it won't just be fat loss sadly.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
- 426 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