Exercise Cals deduction

retta87

So the app tells you what amount of calories you should eat for a certain amount of weight loss. Well then you exercise and you can magically eat more. I guess I’m just a little confused as to why that is, shouldn’t you just stick with the first basic number and anything burned is just extra weight loss added? Maybe I’m looking at it wrong. Idk some further explanation of it would be appreciated! Thanks

NorthCascades

Same reason you have to put more gas in your car when you drive more. It's not magic, it's how this works. Exercise uses energy, and you're already eating at a deficit.

Lietchi

The thing to understand is that your MFP activity level is meant to include only non exercise activity. MFP estimates how many calories you would burn per day at that activity level and then deducts a certain number of calories to achieve the weight loss rate you selected.

When you exercise, you burn more calories on top of what you burn at your selected non exercise activity level, so you need to eat more to arrive at the same calorie deficit/weight loss rate.

sijomial

And if you use a 24hr tracker that calculation also includes exercise.
And if you use a TDEE calculator that also include exercise (just averaged out and included upfront in your daily goal).
It's just that MyFitnessPal works it out slightly differently.

Your base calorie goal to try to achieve your desired rate of weight loss is only for a day with no purposeful exercise. The activity setting here is just for daily non-exercise activity, the exercise per week goal setting doesn't change your calories (it's just a vague intention).
Not magic - just mathematics, if you are calorie counting then it would be rather odd to ignore calories!

Try to think of exercise is for health, fitness, enjoyment and with the bonus you can lose weight while eating a bit more, enjoying that extra food, avoiding excessive hunger and getting better nutrition.

Losing weight as fast as possible really isn't a good idea.

heybales

retta87 wrote: »

So the app tells you what amount of calories you should eat for a certain amount of weight loss. Well then you exercise and you can magically eat more. I guess I’m just a little confused as to why that is, shouldn’t you just stick with the first basic number and anything burned is just extra weight loss added? Maybe I’m looking at it wrong. Idk some further explanation of it would be appreciated! Thanks

Many people think faster is better.

Just ask them every January when they do it again.

IF you got the activity level honestly selected, and a reasonable deficit, and your workouts were 15-20 min of walking a couple times a week - ya, that's not an issue if you don't eat more when you do more.

But a big part of the 80% failure rate to reach or maintain goal weight are the folks doing extremes - already extreme diets, and then gung-ho extreme exercise amounts not accounted for.
Really bad combo.

Other side of that is people using other sites that accounted for a lot of exercise and ate a steady number that assumed they'd do it - and they didn't. And result of little to no weight loss was discouraging.

MFP is trying to teach that life lesson about weight management.
You can eat more when you do more.
You sure better eat less when you do less.

In a diet to lose weight - a little less in either scenario.

retta87

I never eat the amount they give me! I’d be stuffed all the time. I don’t know if because my exercise has went up, but I’ve lost a lot of my appetite and I hope it doesn’t effect my metabolism.

heybales wrote: »

retta87 wrote: »

So the app tells you what amount of calories you should eat for a certain amount of weight loss. Well then you exercise and you can magically eat more. I guess I’m just a little confused as to why that is, shouldn’t you just stick with the first basic number and anything burned is just extra weight loss added? Maybe I’m looking at it wrong. Idk some further explanation of it would be appreciated! Thanks

Many people think faster is better.

Just ask them every January when they do it again.

IF you got the activity level honestly selected, and a reasonable deficit, and your workouts were 15-20 min of walking a couple times a week - ya, that's not an issue if you don't eat more when you do more.

But a big part of the 80% failure rate to reach or maintain goal weight are the folks doing extremes - already extreme diets, and then gung-ho extreme exercise amounts not accounted for.
Really bad combo.

Other side of that is people using other sites that accounted for a lot of exercise and ate a steady number that assumed they'd do it - and they didn't. And result of little to no weight loss was discouraging.

MFP is trying to teach that life lesson about weight management.
You can eat more when you do more.
You sure better eat less when you do less.

In a diet to lose weight - a little less in either scenario.

pridesabtch

retta87 wrote: »

I never eat the amount they give me! I’d be stuffed all the time. I don’t know if because my exercise has went up, but I’ve lost a lot of my appetite and I hope it doesn’t effect my metabolism.

Calories burned in the database are often exaggerated, but eating at least a healthy portion of them back is a good idea. Try adding half of the calories and see if you are still losing weight at a reasonable rate. If you are losing more than 1-2 pounds a week (depending on how much you have to lose), eat back a few more. If your weight loss stalls, eat back a few less.

SuzanneC1l9zz

retta87 wrote: »

I never eat the amount they give me! I’d be stuffed all the time. I don’t know if because my exercise has went up, but I’ve lost a lot of my appetite and I hope it doesn’t effect my metabolism.

Are you still having GI issues though? Your digestive system doesn't have an unlimited capacity... if nothing's leaving you run out of room to put more stuff in. You literally get and stay "full."

littlegreenparrot1

I appreciate I'm quite an extreme example but it helps to illustrate the point.

I'm a runner, currently training for an ultra marathon. The goal on Sunday will be to run 20 miles, that will be on trails, varied terrain, muddy, some very steep hills, probably cold
I certainly will be eating more after that effort, my body will require it. To not eat more would be a very good way to get ill/injured. Wouldn't do me any good.

If I just walked a mile down the road to the supermarket I wouldn't bother. It would be unnecessary.

The goal is not to punish my body, it is to fuel it properly with good stuff so that it continues to allow me to do fun things.

AnnPT77

retta87 wrote: »

I never eat the amount they give me! I’d be stuffed all the time. I don’t know if because my exercise has went up, but I’ve lost a lot of my appetite and I hope it doesn’t effect my metabolism.

heybales wrote: »

retta87 wrote: »

So the app tells you what amount of calories you should eat for a certain amount of weight loss. Well then you exercise and you can magically eat more. I guess I’m just a little confused as to why that is, shouldn’t you just stick with the first basic number and anything burned is just extra weight loss added? Maybe I’m looking at it wrong. Idk some further explanation of it would be appreciated! Thanks

Many people think faster is better.

Just ask them every January when they do it again.

IF you got the activity level honestly selected, and a reasonable deficit, and your workouts were 15-20 min of walking a couple times a week - ya, that's not an issue if you don't eat more when you do more.

But a big part of the 80% failure rate to reach or maintain goal weight are the folks doing extremes - already extreme diets, and then gung-ho extreme exercise amounts not accounted for.
Really bad combo.

Other side of that is people using other sites that accounted for a lot of exercise and ate a steady number that assumed they'd do it - and they didn't. And result of little to no weight loss was discouraging.

MFP is trying to teach that life lesson about weight management.
You can eat more when you do more.
You sure better eat less when you do less.

In a diet to lose weight - a little less in either scenario.

However much you're eating, however you're accounting for exercise, what matters is actual weight loss rate, averaged over whole menstrual cycles (from the same relative day in one to the same relative day in the next).

If you value health and vitality (plus long term outcomes), don't lose faster than 0.5% to 1% of your current body weight weekly - that would be my advice. The lower end of that is less risky, especially if within maybe 50 pounds of goal weight. Within 10-15 pounds of goal if not earlier, I'd suggest going to half a pound a week loss, tops.

That advice applies unless someone is so very overweight that their bodyweight itself is a major health risk (in which case they should be under close medical supervision while losing weineight).

For example, if a woman at 140 pounds wanting to get to 120, 0.5% of 140 would be 0.7 pounds per week . . . and once she got to 130-135, I'd suggest dropping that to half a pound a week.

If your appetite is limiting what you want to eat, eat something calorie dense but not filling. If you're short on some macro, eat that macro (for your health). If your nutrition is in good shape for the day, eat a treat.

Losing weight fast is a poor plan for most people, for health and for long-term success. If not eating exercise calories makes someone lose faster than sensible, it's a bad idea. Weakness, fatigue and hair loss are the less severe potential effects of fast loss. Gallbladder problems, even heart issues are within the realm of possibilities, at an extreme.

Anyone within the range of healthy body weights who has goals of increasing muscularity/toning or athletic/exercise performance, and routinely tries to lose weight fast . . . is being quite counterproductive to their goals. Dumb, even. (Even bodybuilders on a quick pre-competition cut don't do it for long, and they're highly precise with nutrition and exercise load while doing it - they're not just doing random exercises at the gym and eating whatever random low calories, irrespective of what loss rate or nutrition might result.)

Sure, losing weight "too slowly" is frustrating. Personally, I'd prefer to err toward frustration and away from bad health consequences, but everyone has different risk tolerance, I guess.

ETA: I ate every carefully-estimated exercise calorie, all through weight loss, and lost fine. Since I did that, I learned how to account for my exercise, which has made it easy to stay at a healthy weight for 6+ years since, with or without exercise. That's really useful information, IMO.

cwolfman13

retta87 wrote: »

So the app tells you what amount of calories you should eat for a certain amount of weight loss. Well then you exercise and you can magically eat more. I guess I’m just a little confused as to why that is, shouldn’t you just stick with the first basic number and anything burned is just extra weight loss added? Maybe I’m looking at it wrong. Idk some further explanation of it would be appreciated! Thanks

There is nothing "magic" about it...that's how energy works. The further you drive your car, the more fuel it needs no? Same for the human body...the more it moves, the more fuel it needs. Your calorie target is already your deficit to lose weight without any exercise whatsoever. Exercise is unaccounted for activity if you're using MFP as designed. Common sense would dictate that all activity should be accounted for.

Dieting and then also increasing your calorie deficit with exercise is rarely a good idea. Large calorie deficits can be counterproductive at best and dangerously unhealthy at worst. It is one of those things where "more" isn't always better. Health issues with large calorie deficits are also exacerbated when you don't have a lot of stored energy (body fat) on board. The human body strives for homeostasis and with large calorie deficits, the human body will counterbalance the lack of energy coming in by slowing energy expenditure (essentially reduced metabolism). It does this by way of fatigue and lethargy and causing you to move less in your day to day and a reduction in involuntary movements such as fidgeting. Over time, the human body will also slow or cease altogether "non-essential" functions...things like growing hair or nails...hair and nails becoming brittle...hair thinning and falling out...loss of menstrual cycle, etc. In extreme situations, the body goes into starvation...which isn't a hunger thing, it's your body shutting down organ function and ultimately death...I would presume most people wouldn't go that far.

Additionally, dieting is a stress on the body...so is exercise. Exercise made to increase an already existing deficit and making it overly large is an even greater stress on the body. This jacks with your hormone regulation, and in particular raises cortisol levels. Sustained high cortisol levels can impede weight loss, particularly when combined with your body's desire to reconcile energy coming in with expenditure.

The difficulty with the MFP method is getting an accurate estimate of calories out with exercise. Often what machines and other devices give are inflated...some by a lot and some by a little. Database entries can be tricky because they have descriptors like light, moderate, or strenuous and it is often difficult to really determine what level we are working out...like something may feel like a strenuous effort, but it could simply be a matter of being out of shape and it only feeling that way vs actually being a strenuous effort. I first discovered this when I started and put in swimming for 60 minutes strenuous and it gave me some ridiculous calorie burn like 1,000 calories...nobody is burning that in 60 minutes except for maybe Michael Phelps.

Before I had a better way of estimating my calories out, I just used a general notion that burning 500 calories in an hour of cardiovascular work is a pretty high level of effort and I most likely wasn't burning any more than that for a moderate to vigorous effort on most things, and about 1/2 of that for weight training. In reality we just don't burn as many calories with exercise as people typically think based on feelz. My exercise is pretty regular and consistent, so I switched to the TDEE method years ago which accounts for exercise upfront in the activity level and thus a higher calorie target to start with than what MFP gives...ie MFP will give me around 1900 calories + exercise to lose about 1 Lb per week. The TDEE calculator I use gives me around 2,300 out of the gate for the same goal because it includes the regular exercise in my activity level. I lose the same amount of weight with either.

westrich20940

littlegreenparrot1 wrote: »

I appreciate I'm quite an extreme example but it helps to illustrate the point.

I'm a runner, currently training for an ultra marathon. The goal on Sunday will be to run 20 miles, that will be on trails, varied terrain, muddy, some very steep hills, probably cold
I certainly will be eating more after that effort, my body will require it. To not eat more would be a very good way to get ill/injured. Wouldn't do me any good.

If I just walked a mile down the road to the supermarket I wouldn't bother. It would be unnecessary.

The goal is not to punish my body, it is to fuel it properly with good stuff so that it continues to allow me to do fun things.

Firstly - tip of the hat to you.
Secondly - as a fellow runner I'm sure you will be ravenous after that run. What do you use to fuel during your run...I'm always interested in what others are doing.