eating exercise calories

thearianadiaz

i’m a 19 yr. female and weigh about 106 pounds, i’ve recently started going to the gym 6 days a week burning around 700 calories a day. i set my goal on mfp to lose 2 pounds per week to get back to 100 pounds. the only reason i burn so many calories is so i can eat whatever i want and still be in a calorie deficit. does this approach work, or am i actually gaining weight unknowingly?

sijomial

Confusing post!

You are trying to set an unrealistic calorie goal for someone so small (which MyFitnessPal won't allow you to do anyway) but then eat whatever you want?
Then it seems you plan on burning an unlikely amount of calories for a typical gym workout to boost your rate of weight loss from 2lbs to 3lbs a week?
And you want people to tell you if you are gaining weight?

Maybe organise your thoughts and explain in detail what you are doing and why including what's the rush?

moonangel12

I eat back all my exercise calories and have lost at the expected rate for over a year. That is with accurate logging of both food and exercise. A sprint triathlon usually came in around 900 calories, so 700/day 6 days per week does sound high. What kind of exercises are you doing? Some devices and machines will overestimate.

That being said, 2 lbs/week is too fast for your current/goal weight. You should be focused on .5/week or slower (if weight loss at all - how tall are you?) I assume you are shorter based on goal weight which will change things as well. You don’t want to eat less than 1200 calories, bare minimum for a female. Too few calories will take its toll on your body... you might feel fine right now, but eventually you will crash and it can be dangerous when you do (long term damage to your body, including your heart).

jessiemeckle

The risky thing about eating your exercise calories you might end up eating more calories than you "earn". A watch, fitbit, or piece of technology doesn't know Exactly how many calories you are burning, so it's an estimation. Since a calorie deficit is the only way to lose weight, you may not be in a calorie deficit if you eat more calories back than you burn. That being said, I feel like losing 2lbs a week is dangerous for someone who weighs 100 pounds. I'm not an expert though!

AnnPT77

thearianadiaz wrote: »

i’m a 19 yr. female and weigh about 106 pounds, i’ve recently started going to the gym 6 days a week burning around 700 calories a day. i set my goal on mfp to lose 2 pounds per week to get back to 100 pounds. the only reason i burn so many calories is so i can eat whatever i want and still be in a calorie deficit. does this approach work, or am i actually gaining weight unknowingly?

Unlike some of the others, I think in your very specific case, losing 2 pounds a week for a mere three weeks would probably not be majorly life or health threatening, for an active 19-year-old.

But y'know what? It's still a bad idea. You're setting yourself up for a lifespan of crazy yo-yo dieting, and that will lead to a bad place.

It's one of the least healthful ways to lead life (worse health-wise than staying somewhat overweight, according to the statistics). It's likely to lead, cumulatively, to losing unnecessarily large amounts of muscle mass. It also increases chances of short- and long-term adaptive thermogenesis (loosely, training your body to get along on fewer calories because it anticipates more future periods of famine, which is how it sees a huge calorie deficit). The muscle mass shrinkage, plus the adaptive thermogenesis, over a period of time, will mean that every time you go on one of those "lose weight fast" crazes, you'll need to eat fewer and fewer calories to lose weight. In between, the same phenomenon will make regain just that tiny bit faster/bigger, every time.

Don't do it.

You're young. You're healthy. Be smart, too.

Figure out how to eat in a healthy and calorie-appropriate way to maintain your weight in a healthy range (+/- a few pounds). Use exercise to increase your muscle mass (it will make you cuter, I promise), which is a gradual thing but very rewarding. Find fun cardiovascular exercise that fits into your life well (leaving enough time/energy for other important life goals, like friendship, education, career-building, family, other well-rounded hobbies, etc.). Cardiovascular exercise helps keep you healthy, plus vibrant looking long term. Yeah, it will also let you eat a little more, and still maintain a healthy weight.

That kind of approach is a path to thriving. Don't pick the restrict/let-loose merry-go-round instead.

Life balance. Find it. It's important.

And for the love of all that is rational, give your long-term future self a bit of love and consideration. She needs you to find a healthy, balanced lifestyle and habits, or *her* life will be *much* more miserable.

I'm 65 years old. I have any number of same-age friends who went merrily down the path you're describing. Most of them are now obese, needing multiple drugs (with side effects and bad interactions) for metabolic conditions, they're not able to do quite a range of daily life tasks (the harder but routine yard/garden and household work) so need to pay or depend on others, they can't eat/drink what they want (at all, ever, without getting sick) because of their health conditions, they can't do fun things like art/music festivals or stadium events because too much walking or too many stairs, they need more surgeries and have more illnesses (and recover from them more slowly, with more complications), and more.

My same-age friends who've been long-term active/fit and in a healthy weight range don't have those problems. They can do what they want, they can eat/drink what they want (balancing things out over time), are in MUCH better day to day health, with less struggle, more happiness.

You may think you won't live that long. I thought that, but here I am. You may think you won't end up in that bad way from your choices now. Don't count on it . . .

. . . make it so by making good choices now. Please.

kshama2001

Two pounds per week is way too aggressive when one only has 6 pounds to lose.



Also, how long are you at the gym and what are you doing that is burning 700 calories?

If your exercise burn is correct, then yes, if you use MFP you are supposed to eat back your exercise calories, but you need to make sure that 700 calories is accurate.

thearianadiaz

i’m going by what the the treadmill says

kshama2001

thearianadiaz wrote: »

i’m going by what the the treadmill says

How long are you on the treadmill?

thearianadiaz

i go for about an hour, 3.5 mph with the incline set at 15

globalc00

CICO, so as long as you are burning more than you take in, you will lose weight. That being said, make sure you are accurately tracking your food and exercise. The calories shown on exercise machines are typically not accurate and most people tend to underestimate the number of calories they are eating. There are also reasons for body weight to not change such as water retention, building muscle and stuff. So need to be aware of those things.

Whether what you are doing is healthy, or ideal or sustainable or a good choice are questions you didn't ask so I won't answer.

yirara

thearianadiaz wrote: »

i go for about an hour, 3.5 mph with the incline set at 15

Wow, so this treadmill is likely the winner for the biggest overstated calories of the year. If you were walking 3.5 miles out in nature you'd maybe get 150 calories. So the good news is that you're not starving yourself. That's a relief. Other than that, please do listen to what AnnP and Sjoimal said.

nooshi713

thearianadiaz wrote: »

i go for about an hour, 3.5 mph with the incline set at 15

You’re likely not burning close to 700 calories doing an hour on the treadmill at your weight. I weigh 30 lbs more than you and burn about 250 per hour at that rate.

lgfrie

^ that.

Sorry to say, you are not burning 700 calories on a treadmill in an hour at 3.5 mph. A lot of people fall for those inflated machine numbers. Don't fall for it.

the formula is: NET calories burned = watts/hr * 3.6

Moderately brisk walking on a moderate incline is probably around 75 watts. 75 * 3.6 = 270. Or a hundred watts at most, therefore 360 calories max. Or put another way, 5 or 6 calories per minute. I use 5 cal/min for generic walking/treadmill. You would have to significantly raise the power output through either speed or incline to get to 700.

PS Another way to slice and dice the numbers is, calories per mile. Treadmill or road, a mile's a mile. NET calories for a mile is typically estimated at 60-100 depending on one's weight and some other factors (hill gradient, etc). Let's go with the top end estimate of 100. 3.5 mph for an hour = 3.5 miles = 350 calories. Which squares nicely with the wattage formula if you assume 100 watts, i.e. 360 calories. That's about half of what your machine is reporting, which is typical.

Dogmom1978

All of the above.

No way you are burning 700 calories in one hour on the treadmill. Sorry, but thats simply not a thing (based on your speed/incline).

And .5 lbs a week MAX for your deficit. You have very little to lose and it is going to take TIME. Your tracking will need to be spot on also. Are you weighing your food with a food scale to determine how many calories you eat in a day?

netitheyeti

it's fine (and good) to eat your exercise calories if you're active, however, like people have pointed out, those calories sound inflated... for perspective, I'm a bit older (30), a hair under 5'3 and maintaining in the 118-120ish lb range, I just spent a month walking to work and back (2h of walking a day, at roughly 3.5mph) and doing some yoga, pilates and weights in the evenings and I needed about 2100kcal a day to maintain - so 2-3h of extra activity a day only gave me about 500-600kcal extra to eat

Honestly I'd set the deficit to something like 250kcal a day and use a food scale, and maybe take machine estimates with a grain of salt

djaxon1

https://42.195km.net/e/treadsim/
https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
Both in close agreement - 504 cals for 60 mins , not for "about" 60 mins.
These 2 calculators read a fair bit higher than my HRM and app. does for my incline TM workout.

That is good going - an hour, 6 days, 3.5mph 15% ! What % max HR at the end?
Even with your very high calorie burn it's a lot easier just to not eat it in the first place -
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10817189/how-do-you-get-over-this-mindset

yirara

djaxon1 wrote: »

https://42.195km.net/e/treadsim/
https://exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs
Both in close agreement - 504 cals for 60 mins , not for "about" 60 mins.
These 2 calculators read a fair bit higher than my HRM and app. does for my incline TM workout.

That is good going - an hour, 6 days, 3.5mph 15% ! What % max HR at the end?
Even with your very high calorie burn it's a lot easier just to not eat it in the first place -
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10817189/how-do-you-get-over-this-mindset

I only tried the first calculator, assuming 2mph for one hour. clearly walking. I get 271 calories, which seems a lot for a low stroll. using the 0.3 multiplier for walking I get 84 net calories.
Then I tried the same for running, same weight and duration, speed at 5 mph. I get 572 calories, which also seems high. Using the 0.64 multiplier for running I get 448 net calories.

So my guess is that this calculator is not useful for walking but only for running. And it displays gross calories and not net calories. If you were to eat everything back it gives you then you'd overeat by a bit.

dragon_girl26

Yeah, I usually estimate about 70ish calories per mile when I walk..and that's at a higher pace (about 4.5 mph). Also, I have about 70 lbs on you, OP.
So, 700 calorie burn at that pace,, and especially at your current weight/ height is definitely an overestimate.

djaxon1

Not sure what grade you used, but for OP at 2mph, 15 grade, gives 287cals/hr 15% makes v. much harder.
I do think they both read a bit high.
The 2nd has nett/gross option.
They seem to be fairly well regarded tho' .
My treadmill is rigged to 18% grade and no other calcs will give any readings.
I've read that such steady state cardio work is pretty well known for actual cal. burn

lemurcat2

The 15% incline (top incline for most treadmills, I think) makes a difference, though, at least as long as you aren't holding tight to the handlebars. I would expect the burn to be quite a bit higher with a 15% incline, all else equal, vs a 2%, say. (Estimates from calculators are all over the place, so if the exercise is consistent I'd focus more on calories eaten and what the weight does. I don't personally try to log or calculate cals from walking at all, but figure it into how active I am overall. Here, however, I'd probably recommend halving it -- if OP is not hanging on the handlebars -- and then evaluating over time.)

That said, I think the focus on the exercise burn and whether it's too high (I also think so) is somewhat misplaced given that OP is 19, 106, and trying to get to 100 with a loss rate of 2 lb/week, and we have no idea what she's eating or what her overall activity level is. Obviously, OP has not given her height, which makes a difference, but 2 lb/week is not realistic (not for lasting, healthy weight loss). The biggest issue doesn't strike me as whether she's overestimating her treadmill cals.

OP asks "does this approach work" (meaning doing the exercise identified, which presumably is an increase, and eating what she wants) or "am I actually gaining weight unknowingly?"

It's confusing since she also said she set MFP to lose 2 lb/week, which at her weight is going to give her 1200 and probably nowhere near 2 lb/week for that.

OP, I'd say that you should track your eating and exercise (and include a good estimate of overall activity which could or could not include exercise, although I wouldn't also log the treadmill cals if it does) for a while and see what your weight does. You can't gain weight unknowingly if you weigh yourself regularly, but you also shouldn't overreact to weight fluctuations, as there will be some.

yirara

djaxon1 wrote: »

Not sure what grade you used, but for OP at 2mph, 15 grade, gives 287cals/hr 15% makes v. much harder.
I do think they both read a bit high.
The 2nd has nett/gross option.
They seem to be fairly well regarded tho' .
My treadmill is rigged to 18% grade and no other calcs will give any readings.
I've read that such steady state cardio work is pretty well known for actual cal. burn

yes, to have something to compare it to and to test this calculator I used no incline. Main story remains: It seems unlikely this is in any way realistic for walking. For running it seems ok, provided one uses a net calorie option.

elisa123gal

Six pounds is not much for a young lady. Just eat healthy and exercise about five days a week. Use common sense and don't do extreme underrating or over exercising. Eat 1200 calories a day until you lose It all.. eat back your exercise calories if you want and are hungry.. don't if you're not hungry. You'd have that off by late or end of January for sure.

AshHeartsJesus

How tall are you? 106lbs is very small for most women. Eat healthy and stay active and chill 🙉

ninerbuff

thearianadiaz wrote: »

i go for about an hour, 3.5 mph with the incline set at 15

Are you holding on? Because if you are there's NO WAY you're burning 700 calories per hour at 106 lbs. Holding on reduces intensity and that means you're NOT working out to what the treadmill says the calorie burn is.


A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

karahm78

OP, as I understand you want to eat whatever you want and you want to exercise enough that you can? Sorry to say, but you can’t outrun a bad diet. It is EASY to consume several thousand calories if eating fast food, lots of soda, etc.

When I was 19 I did of course eat those things, but couldn’t every day without gaining. When I did I was mindful elsewhere for a few days, exercised a little more, etc. You’ll need to find that balance.

Unknown

This content has been removed.