I’m confused

bigmouthaj

I’m trying to lose weight and it says my calories per day should be 2640, so far I’ve eaten a little over 2724. Yet it says I have left over calories?? I’m so confused. I’m very new to this and calorie counting.

asa_nanica

It's because it is adding back in the exercise you did.

DancingMoosie

It's because you added exercise calories. Those can be eaten as well.

bigmouthaj

So I am essentially eating more than my “goal” calories? That’s where I’m lost haha

AnnPT77

bigmouthaj wrote: »

So I am essentially eating more than my “goal” calories? That’s where I’m lost haha

Here's the MFP concept:

* You set up your profile with an "activity level" setting that is your life *before* intentional exercise.
* You tell MFP how fast you want to lose weight. Let's say you tell it you want to lose a pound a week.
* MFP estimates your calorie needs to maintain your weight (before considering exercise). Let's say that's 2500 calories as an example, for simplicity of math.
* To lose a pound a week, you need a calorie deficit of 500 calories daily, i.e., you need to eat 500 calories fewer than it would take to maintain your weight.
* As a consequence of the above, MFP gives you a calorie goal of 2000 calories (2500 to maintain - 500 needed to lose a pound a week). These are all estimates, but statistically sensible ones.
* Now, let's say you do 250 calories of exercise and log it. That means that maintaining your current weight would require the original 2500 maintenance calories + 250 more calories to fuel the exercise, so 2750 calories to maintain weight.
* But you're still trying to lose that pound a week, right? So, subtract the 500 daily to lose a pound a week from the 2750, and you need to eat 2250. That will still leave you with that 500 calorie deficit for the day, to lose the pound a week.

MFP is trying to teach the the very useful life lesson that active people need to eat more, and get to eat more.

If you don't eat those added calories, yes, you would probably lose weight faster. Losing weight ultra-fast isn't healthy, and it doesn't lead to good exercise performance.

If you set you set yourself up for an ultra slow loss rate for your current size, and do small amounts of exercise, it's fine to let the exercise calories speed up your loss rate, because what matters in the end is whether you lose at a sensibly moderate rate, or not.

If you set yourself up for a super-aggressive fast loss rate in the first place, then let the exercise calories make you lose even faster, you're setting yourself up with increased health risks (potentially serious, but not guaranteed to be) and increasing likelihood that you'll eventually give up because the routine is too punitive. Those things would be counterproductive.

In between those extremes, it's a judgement call: How much health risk do you like? How punitive a routine can you tolerate?

I hope that makes the process clearer.

bigmouthaj

So it doesn’t already subtract the 500? I put my weight and activity level and it gave me that number. So I have to do the subtractions of what they gave me?

AnnPT77

bigmouthaj wrote: »

So it doesn’t already subtract the 500? I put my weight and activity level and it gave me that number. So I have to do the subtractions of what they gave me?

No. It did the subtraction.

In the example I was trying to explain, MFP would've given the basic daily goal of 2000 calories, which already subtracts the 500 calories needed to lose a pound a week . . . before doing any exercise.

If you do exercise, you burn more calories, right? So if (as that example person) you want to keep at the "lose a pound a week" level, you eat the exercise calories . . . because the 500 calories needed for your pound a week loss are already in the base calorie goal.

Any exercise calories on top of that, MFP intends you to eat back, so you stay even-up at the same weight loss rate.

Some people worry that exercise calories are over-estimated, so eat only part of them back (at first). Some exercise calorie estimates are more reliable than others, so you can get feedback from the community if you say what exercise type you're doing for how long, how you're getting the estimate, and what the estimated calories are.

I estimated my exercise calories carefully, ate pretty much all of them back while losing from obese to a healthy weight, have eaten them all back for nearly 6 years since in maintenance, and my weight has behaved as I expect. That's been true when I exercise a lot, and also when I exercise hardly at all. This approach can work.

Also, IMO, exercise calories taste the best. 😉

bigmouthaj

So let me run this back so I know im understanding correctly, the number they gave me (2640) is the amount I should aim to eat, they already calculated the deficit.

Now I SHOULD eat back the exercise calories as well?

Sorry I’m very very new at this. Im on my feet for half the day at work (chipotle) so I’m getting some exercise. However I am starting to lift weights at my gym

bigmouthaj

Also in that photo I posted above, you would say I’m in a deficit since I ate the correct amount they gave me (plus exercise calories)

lynn_glenmont

bigmouthaj wrote: »

So let me run this back so I know im understanding correctly, the number they gave me (2640) is the amount I should aim to eat, they already calculated the deficit.

Now I SHOULD eat back the exercise calories as well?

Sorry I’m very very new at this. Im on my feet for half the day at work (chipotle) so I’m getting some exercise. However I am starting to lift weights at my gym

Yes, although you should be accounting for being on your feet at your job in your activity level, rather than as exercise (and definitely not double dipping by counting it for both). And if you're getting a substantial number of calories from logging your lifting (or from wearing a step-counter or heart-rate monitor while you're lifting), you may need to rethink how you're accounting for that. Lifting at a vigorous level is a 6 MET activity, but only for the time that you're actively lifting, not for rest periods between sets or for recording your sets on your phone or for refilling your water bottle ...

bigmouthaj wrote: »

Also in that photo I posted above, you would say I’m in a deficit since I ate the correct amount they gave me (plus exercise calories)

Yes.

bigmouthaj

Yeah I put it as my activity level. Im just planning on lifting weights. Nothing extreme. Just counting calories and exercising

AnnPT77

bigmouthaj wrote: »

So let me run this back so I know im understanding correctly, the number they gave me (2640) is the amount I should aim to eat, they already calculated the deficit.

Now I SHOULD eat back the exercise calories as well?

Sorry I’m very very new at this. Im on my feet for half the day at work (chipotle) so I’m getting some exercise. However I am starting to lift weights at my gym

Assuming:
* You set your MFP activity level based on your life *before* exercise (job, home chores, that sort of thing are MFP's "activity level"
* You told MFP your goal was to lose X lbs/kg per week,

. . . then yes, you should eat 2640 on a day when you do no exercise.

On a day when you do exercise, you should eat back a reasonable estimate of the exercise calories, in addition to the 2640 calories. So, if you do 200 calories of exercise, eat 2840 calories.

That keeps you at the same "lose X per week" calorie level.

IF your exercise calories come from a fitness tracker synched to MFP, and IF you have negative calories enabled, then your MFP activity level setting almost doesn't matter, because your calorie adjustment from the tracker will calculate out all that stuff by the end of the day (with the caveat that Apple watch integration is a little screwed up).

bigmouthaj

Makes sense!

bigmouthaj

The one thing I still don’t get is why I would eat back the calories I burned? Like if I burned them won’t eating it back set me back to where I was before I worked out?

ninerbuff

bigmouthaj wrote: »

The one thing I still don’t get is why I would eat back the calories I burned? Like if I burned them won’t eating it back set me back to where I was before I worked out?

Well no because even WITHOUT exercise, you're at a 500 calorie deficit.

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

AnnPT77

bigmouthaj wrote: »

The one thing I still don’t get is why I would eat back the calories I burned? Like if I burned them won’t eating it back set me back to where I was before I worked out?

In one sense, yes: You were at a deficit (to achieve X weight loss per week) before the exercise.

You then do the exercise, eat the exercise calories, and are still at the same deficit to lose the same amount of weight per week, after doing those things.

Which is what you want, or IMO ought to want.

Losing weight too fast risks your health. That's a bad idea.

Exercise is good for your body, and is fun (ideally). Underfueling the exercise short-changes those benefits.

Do the exercise to get stronger, fitter, more physically capable, and healthier, and to eat a bit more while losing weight at a sensible pace.

Don't do exercise to lose weight faster than sensible.

I hear that you're confused, and sympathize with that. I think you're now re-asking questions already answered above, as a result of that confusion.

Maybe take a few minutes, re-read the whole thread above carefully, and calmly give it a bit of a think?

Best wishes!