Eating back Calories Burned
Winning4EJ
Posts: 47 Member
Just curious if anyone has experimented with this and figured out what works best for them. Does eating back your calories burned still help you lose weight? I have a feeling that for me eating back the calories slows my progress.
I'm 171lbs 5'7
Goal 150ish
I'm 171lbs 5'7
Goal 150ish
Tagged:
0
Replies
-
It can be problematic if you over estimate calories burned. That coupled with selecting the incorrect activity level and you'll be way off. Some people find that eating back 50% of exercise calories works. Some, like me, don't eat back any exercise calories. After 4-6 weeks, whatever you chose will show up in your results or lack of results. Go from there...
3 -
I have actually spent a lot of time with this and through trial and error have found that calories burned can be off by as much as 25% (barring user errors like entering your weight and age wrong on a treadmill for example). What I like to do is subtract 25% from whatever I burn before I log and then if I do eat anything back which I feel is fine I eat max 50% so if I run and the treadmill says 1,000 calories I log 750 and allow myself to eat back 375 of it. It’s by no means a perfect solution but when I exercise it makes me hungry so not eating anything back has lead to late night binges or eating junk when I go out after working out earlier in the day. The formula I use seems to still give me the benefits of weight loss from the exercise and helps prevent bad behavior from being too hungry.1
-
If a person's at X base calories, of course eating back exercise calories on top of that will result in slower loss than not eating back exercise calories.
The issue is that losing weight too fast increases health risks, and under fueling exercise saps energy and degrades athletic performance.
I figure that the person is winning who can eat the most alongside losing weight at a satisfying (yet sensibly moderate) rate, while feeling reasonably sated most of the time, getting excellent nutrition, and feeling energetic.
I estimated exercise calories carefully, ate them all back, lost from class 1 obese to a healthy weight in just less than a year. I've maintained a healthy weight for 7+ years since the same way.
Athletic performance stayed consistent, too, except for a brief period early on when I lost too fast by accident, got weak and fatigued, then took a few weeks to get back to good strength/energy even after increasing calorie intake as soon as I realized.
Fast loss is a trap, often a counterproductive strategy.
Either estimate calorie needs pre-exercise and log/eat exercise calories in addition (MFP method); or use a TDEE calculator to average in exercise and eat the same number of calories daily. Either can work. Don't under fuel. That would be my advice.
7 -
I ate back all of my exercise calories (synced fitness tracker) and still lost weight faster than expected.
The best thing is to choose a strategy (eat them all back, eat back 50% out whatever you choose) and do that for at least a month (one menstrual cycle if applicable). If you lost faster than expected, eat more. If you lost slower than expected, eat less.
Exercise calories could be wrong, but also your base metabolism could be higher or lower than statistically average. So that's why calculators are only a starting point and your own data will allow you make adjustments and find what works for you.5 -
Unlike other sites which use TDEE calculators, MFP uses the NEAT method (Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis), and as such this system is designed for exercise calories to be eaten back. However, many consider the burns given by MFP to be inflated for them and only eat a percentage, such as 50%, back. Others are able to lose weight while eating 100% of their exercise calories.
I'm set at Sedentary and eat 100% of my exercise calories back. I get mostly get them from MFP, but sometimes make custom entries. For example, unless I am digging with a shovel "Gardening" is too high. The MFP Tai Chi entry seems more geared towards an athletic martial arts style than what I do. I go a lot slower on the elliptical than is normal, so made a custom entry for that.
I believe MFP's "walking, 3MPH" entry is accurate for me and use it to reality check other entries. I ask myself this question, "If this is how I feel after an hour of walking, does this calorie burn for this other activity feel accurate to me?"
Also, I do not count the first mile I walk, hour I cook, or half hour I clean. MFP's "Sedentary" is not as sedentary as is possible
https://support.myfitnesspal.com/hc/en-us/articles/360032625391-How-does-MyFitnessPal-calculate-my-initial-goals-
2 -
Winning4EJ wrote: »Just curious if anyone has experimented with this and figured out what works best for them. Does eating back your calories burned still help you lose weight? I have a feeling that for me eating back the calories slows my progress.
I'm 171lbs 5'7
Goal 150ish
Well, sure, you would lose faster if you eat less, but a better question is, "What is an appropriate rate of loss for me?"
With only 20 pounds to go, it will be slow.
3 -
For me, it worked to eat back all of my exercise calories, both for losing weight and maintaining. I have a somewhat faster/higher metabolism than most women my age and I get a lot of exercise. If I didn't eat back the calories, I would be starving all the time. That isn't a good way to live and for me would inevitably lead to binges. I also wouldn't be able to do all the exercise that I enjoy doing. As others stated, you can experiment with eating back all or half your exercise calories and see what happens with your weight.1
-
Many make the mistake of using too high of an activity level for their base calorie amount.
Activity level DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY EXERCISE CALORIES2 -
I have my activity level at sedentary since my main exertion comes from exercise or walking only.0
-
I have to eat all my exercise calories back or I’d feel starved and deprived. Then, I’d binge. However, I carefully decide on the number of calories I’ve burned depending on how enthusiastic I was during my workout. I don’t use mfp’s calculations. They’re way too high for someone of my size and age. I lose slowly, but it’s been working for about 7 months now.1
-
I ate back all of my exercise calories (synced fitness tracker) and still lost weight faster than expected.
Ditto, except I didn't have a fitness tracker. Mostly just time and perceived intensity and a METS list.
ETA
Obviously everyone will have their own experience. As Lietchi suggests, tracking for a month or two and using your own data and results is very helpful. I did this after my first couple of months and again a year later (my nonexercise calorie burn went up about 40 calories over that year, despite losing about 20 pounds, and it's about 400 calories higher than MFP estimates).
Since then I've been satisfied that most weeks match my expectations based on my burn based on those earlier calculations, and when they don't, there's usually a pretty obvious explanation related to water retention or the contents of my digestive tract.1 -
I lose faster when I eat my exercise calories. It helps me to not lose muscle as I lose weight, since that really defeats the purpose.
For comparison, I'm a 5' tall female in my mid-40s.1 -
@Winning4EJ I'm glad you asked about this, since I have the same question and am pretty close to you in height, weight, and goal weight. When I started this seriously two months ago, I was eating back all my exercise calories but not losing - so I shifted to eating back none or some and then I started losing. Most of my exercise is from a stationary bike, and I'm certain MFP's calorie count for that is much too high, as my bike is very low-tech and I don't ride very fast. My other main exercises are some stretching, indoor walking/dance, and a tiny bit of strength, mostly using online videos. None of these involve a lot of exertion. I want to be moving and feeling better and stronger, but I don't think exercise is playing much of a role in weight loss for me. But I'll continue to experiment a bit.1
-
For me, Yes. I always ate every single delicious Exercise Calorie. It worked for me. I still do it. That's the way the site is designed to be used and I found a flat 300 calories per hour of (my) moderate exercise works alongside "Lightly Active" (I'm retired) and diligent logging. Your personal situation is different. Run the experiment for yourself.
https://support.myfitnesspal.com/hc/en-us/articles/360032625391-How-does-MyFitnessPal-calculate-my-initial-goals-
The Activity Level calories go up and down in increments of 250 calories, so that's another way of manipulating your base calories.
All of this is an experiment YOU have to run. Some peoples' logging is more accurate. Some people choose "Sedentary" when they're waitresses but then log their work steps. Some people find that 50% of Exercise Calories is closer to accurate. There are multiple permutations of logging/Activity Level/exercise calories. Some people use synced devices, some guess on calories eaten without using a food scale.
Log food and exercise for 4-6 weeks. Pick either "Yes" or "No" or a percentage of your exercise calories. If numbers are important to you this is the easiest way. Stick with it for 4-6 weeks. Then go back and calculate your loss based on your numbers.3 -
When you use MFP to calculate your calorie goal and you tell it you want to lose weight - the calorie goal it gives you is already at a deficit to your maintenance calories.
When you tell it your activity level it doesn't intend for you to include purposeful exercise - just your general lifestyle (job, etc.).
You are supposed to eat the workout calories back. Otherwise you'd create too much of a deficit (i.e. consuming too low NET calories in your day). You can even this out over the week if you like but you should be eating back your exercise calories.
I lost ~25lbs eating back 80-100% of my exercise calories.1 -
This can work or not work. It works if you are counting and tracking calories properly, have chosen the correct base activity level and choose the correct amount of calories being burned during exercise. If any of those factors are off then it won’t work properly.westrich20940 wrote: »When you use MFP to calculate your calorie goal and you tell it you want to lose weight - the calorie goal it gives you is already at a deficit to your maintenance calories.
When you tell it your activity level it doesn't intend for you to include purposeful exercise - just your general lifestyle (job, etc.).
You are supposed to eat the workout calories back. Otherwise you'd create too much of a deficit (i.e. consuming too low NET calories in your day). You can even this out over the week if you like but you should be eating back your exercise calories.
I lost ~25lbs eating back 80-100% of my exercise calories.
Eating back 80% is not eating back all the exercise calories so that ends up being a personal adjustment to get the results you’re after which is what is best after playing around with the numbers for awhile and figuring out what works on an individual basis.
Eat back calories will be 0%-100% depending on the previously mentioned factors.
2 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »
This can work or not work. It works if you are counting and tracking calories properly, have chosen the correct base activity level and choose the correct amount of calories being burned during exercise. If any of those factors are off then it won’t work properly.westrich20940 wrote: »When you use MFP to calculate your calorie goal and you tell it you want to lose weight - the calorie goal it gives you is already at a deficit to your maintenance calories.
When you tell it your activity level it doesn't intend for you to include purposeful exercise - just your general lifestyle (job, etc.).
You are supposed to eat the workout calories back. Otherwise you'd create too much of a deficit (i.e. consuming too low NET calories in your day). You can even this out over the week if you like but you should be eating back your exercise calories.
I lost ~25lbs eating back 80-100% of my exercise calories.
Eating back 80% is not eating back all the exercise calories so that ends up being a personal adjustment to get the results you’re after which is what is best after playing around with the numbers for awhile and figuring out what works on an individual basis.
Eat back calories will be 0%-100% depending on the previously mentioned factors.
Yes, of course, all of these things are estimates and there is wiggle room. However, that doesn't change the way MFP is meant to work/be used. It is meant for you to eat back intentional exercise calories unless you've used another method to calculate your daily/weekly calorie needs. I know everyone has a varying range of error when logging calories consumed/burned. That's the first suggestion when people think something's not working -- ensure that you are accurate with your calorie consumption and burns - which will take practice and time.
Edit: I'm saying this bc there seems to be consistent pervasive misunderstanding of eating back exercise calories - and NOT eating any of them back when the calorie goal set by MFP is already at a deficit is a great way to be undereating routinely, which isn't good for anyone.1 -
Which again is dependent on accurate input of data which is very easy to not do. Undereating would be evident with a faster than planned weightloss which is corrected. Slower than planned weightloss is also corrected. It's all a matter of adjustments once someone has a month or 2 of data.westrich20940 wrote: »tomcustombuilder wrote: »
This can work or not work. It works if you are counting and tracking calories properly, have chosen the correct base activity level and choose the correct amount of calories being burned during exercise. If any of those factors are off then it won’t work properly.westrich20940 wrote: »When you use MFP to calculate your calorie goal and you tell it you want to lose weight - the calorie goal it gives you is already at a deficit to your maintenance calories.
When you tell it your activity level it doesn't intend for you to include purposeful exercise - just your general lifestyle (job, etc.).
You are supposed to eat the workout calories back. Otherwise you'd create too much of a deficit (i.e. consuming too low NET calories in your day). You can even this out over the week if you like but you should be eating back your exercise calories.
I lost ~25lbs eating back 80-100% of my exercise calories.
Eating back 80% is not eating back all the exercise calories so that ends up being a personal adjustment to get the results you’re after which is what is best after playing around with the numbers for awhile and figuring out what works on an individual basis.
Eat back calories will be 0%-100% depending on the previously mentioned factors.
Yes, of course, all of these things are estimates and there is wiggle room. However, that doesn't change the way MFP is meant to work/be used. It is meant for you to eat back intentional exercise calories unless you've used another method to calculate your daily/weekly calorie needs. I know everyone has a varying range of error when logging calories consumed/burned. That's the first suggestion when people think something's not working -- ensure that you are accurate with your calorie consumption and burns - which will take practice and time.
Edit: I'm saying this bc there seems to be consistent pervasive misunderstanding of eating back exercise calories - and NOT eating any of them back when the calorie goal set by MFP is already at a deficit is a great way to be undereating routinely, which isn't good for anyone.
Bottom line is any calorie tracker whether it's MFP or something else is only as accurate in results as the data being input is
1 -
Winning4EJ wrote: »Just curious if anyone has experimented with this and figured out what works best for them. Does eating back your calories burned still help you lose weight? I have a feeling that for me eating back the calories slows my progress.
I'm 171lbs 5'7
Goal 150ish
It is the way this tool is designed to be used because deliberate exercise is not included in your base calories. That said, it will depend on how accurate you are with logging as well as the accuracy of your exercise calorie estimates. For myself, I also looked at the actual exercise activity that I was doing...ie walking my dog for a couple of miles, I didn't really see much need to consume additional calories. For one thing, they weren't that much, and also, walking my dog isn't a particularly punishing workout and doesn't really require recovery.
When I got into endurance cycling, that was a completely different animal. 2-3-4 hour rides require fuel and recovery. I also have a power meter on my bike which is very accurate in determining calories expended for cycling so I never had any issue eating back all of my exercise calories other than it often being a lot of calories, but I ultimately came up with a recovery smoothie that was around 1K calories but wasn't super high volume.1 -
I am a data person, so I like the idea of picking the percentage of exercise calories you eat back, sticking with that for 4-6 weeks, then adjusting based on results.
My personal approach:- 47 year old female - 5' 4"
- Starting weight 228, current weight 180, goal weight 148.
- Activity level set at sedentary (I have a desk job).
- Target weight loss started at 2 lbs/week, is currently 1.5 lbs/week and will drop to 1 lb/week then 0.5 lbs/week as I get closer to my goal weight.
- Use Apple Watch synced with MFP to track intentional exercise (walking for the purpose of walking or mowing the lawn gets tracked but walking around the house doing laundry, etc does not).
- Adjust exercise totals that don't make sense to me - ie, mowing the lawn with a total distance of 2.4 miles in 57 minutes gives me 2x the calories I get for walking 2.4 miles at a 3 mph pace (I think my Apple watch counts the vibration of the lawn mower as extra effort) so I adjust the calories for that activity in MFP to match what I would get for a "normal" walk.
- Weigh/measure all calorie dense foods and most other foods as well.
- Eat pretty much the same breakfast, lunch, and snacks most days so most calorie variability comes from dinners and that's where I focus most of my weighing/measuring efforts.
- Target eating back 100% of my exercise calories but am usually ending the week up about 10% under total calorie goal.
- Total average weight loss since starting weight has been 1.9 lbs/week, so I'm now considering an adjustment to be more intentional about eating back all my calories or dropping my target weight loss down to 1 lb/week a little earlier than I had planned.
Something that resonated with me was the saying "you can't exercise your way out of a bad diet". That is what had me focus more on tracking what I was putting in my body than what I was burning through exercise. One question to ask yourself is whether the calories/day you burn through exercise are where the real variability comes in for you. For myself, I've found that focusing the energy on being accurate about "calories in" has a bigger impact than nit picking my "calories out". Not that I don't play with it (as you can see above), but I consider that more of a fine tuning where tracking my intake is the big needle mover.2 -
I am a data person, so I like the idea of picking the percentage of exercise calories you eat back, sticking with that for 4-6 weeks, then adjusting based on results.
My personal approach:- 47 year old female - 5' 4"
- Starting weight 228, current weight 180, goal weight 148.
- Activity level set at sedentary (I have a desk job).
- Target weight loss started at 2 lbs/week, is currently 1.5 lbs/week and will drop to 1 lb/week then 0.5 lbs/week as I get closer to my goal weight.
- Use Apple Watch synced with MFP to track intentional exercise (walking for the purpose of walking or mowing the lawn gets tracked but walking around the house doing laundry, etc does not).
- Adjust exercise totals that don't make sense to me - ie, mowing the lawn with a total distance of 2.4 miles in 57 minutes gives me 2x the calories I get for walking 2.4 miles at a 3 mph pace (I think my Apple watch counts the vibration of the lawn mower as extra effort) so I adjust the calories for that activity in MFP to match what I would get for a "normal" walk.
- Weigh/measure all calorie dense foods and most other foods as well.
- Eat pretty much the same breakfast, lunch, and snacks most days so most calorie variability comes from dinners and that's where I focus most of my weighing/measuring efforts.
- Target eating back 100% of my exercise calories but am usually ending the week up about 10% under total calorie goal.
- Total average weight loss since starting weight has been 1.9 lbs/week, so I'm now considering an adjustment to be more intentional about eating back all my calories or dropping my target weight loss down to 1 lb/week a little earlier than I had planned.
Something that resonated with me was the saying "you can't exercise your way out of a bad diet". That is what had me focus more on tracking what I was putting in my body than what I was burning through exercise. One question to ask yourself is whether the calories/day you burn through exercise are where the real variability comes in for you. For myself, I've found that focusing the energy on being accurate about "calories in" has a bigger impact than nit picking my "calories out". Not that I don't play with it (as you can see above), but I consider that more of a fine tuning where tracking my intake is the big needle mover.
It's also super common around here to believe that if someone doesn't lose at the expected rate, it's the exercise calorie estimates that are the source of the discrepancy.
It ain't necessarily so.
Any of the calculators start with a BMR/RMR estimate that's the average (from research) for people with similar demographics. Fitness trackers do the same thing. Most people don't vary hugely from the average, but they do vary; and a rare few vary by a surprising amount. (*1*)
(*1*) https://examine.com/articles/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
Then the calculators apply an "activity multiplier" based on the activity level we input. The most activity levels I've seen are the 10 that Sailrabbit (*2*) uses. MFP has 4 levels. Others vary. Do we really think that all humans' activity falls into 4, or 10 or some other number of arbitrary exact categories of activity? That's not possible: Activity is at least a continuum, maybe even a multi-dimensional estimating space (dimension of duration, intensity, etc.).
(*2*) https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/
People think they're getting more exactitude from a fitness tracker. Maybe, kinda. Like I said, trackers typically start with the same kind of BMR/RMR estimates that the calculators use. They then do a more nuanced estimate of all-day activity impact, but it's still fundamentally based on population averages. ("People who wiggle their arm X much are usually walking at Y pace" or "people with X heart beats per minute are usually doing aerobics (or whatever) at Y intensity, which burns Z calories per hour" kinds of things.)
It's all estimates. Your BMR/RMR could be different from average. Your activity level may not fit the assumptions. Your fitness tracker may over- or under-estimate your actual movement activity/intensity.
All we need is to get close enough to be workable, and enough people succeed at this that we have a pretty fair indication that that's possible.
If someone finds that their weight loss rate is not as expected, it's worth a bit of a think about whether that's via the base calorie estimate, the exercise calorie estimates, or the food logging accuracy, or a combination.
I think we on MFP are more likely to blame (and adjust) the exercise estimate because we add it last, and because we estimate it explicitly while realizing there's a guess factor (rather than getting from some seemingly-magical black box piece of technology like a calculator that just spits out a number).
/rant1 -
I fully understand how MFP's system works.
I also wonder if it's fundamentally flawed. Aside from all the confusion it seems to create among so many new users, there are a couple of big issues with it:
1. Estimates for calories burned can vary greatly. Admittedly, the same comment applies to every calculator which applies a generic 1.4 or 1.6 or whatever multiplier to your estimated BMR, but with MFP it's made more explicit, and the system encourages you to eat back that amount.
2. After exercise, you probably subconsciously do less NEAT during the rest of the day. It's called compensation. So even if you accurately estimate you burned an extra 500 calories during the workout, you may compensate by burning a few hundred less from NEAT later in the day. Some users say they eat back 50%, and that probably accounts for that. If you eat back 100%, and are a couch potato more than normal because the workout tired you out, you may actually be eating in a surplus now.
I track everything with MFP, and I also keep a spreadsheet of daily calories and net calories, which includes my conservative workout estimates. From that, I can calculate my TDEE, while factoring in 3500 for each pound lost YTD. What I find is my TDEE is more than 700 above MFP's estimate, and there's no way my workouts are 700 per day.1 -
@Retroguy2000 ????
-- your base level may not be selected correctly
-- your miflin rmr may not be your actual RMR. And if you multiply that by the activity factor.....
Outliers exist and even a small percentage of outliers is a lot of people when dealing with millions of MFP users
--- the biggest discrepancy is long duration and especially lower intensity exercise. The issue is not just net; but whether even net is the appropriate number to log.
Because MFP is already logging at least Mifflin RMR * 1.25 for every minute of your exercise exercise. And if the exercise is low to moderate intensity (such as my walkies) 1.25 * RMR is a big chunk of it -- and an even bigger chunk back in the day when I was setup as active making the pre logged amount 1.8 x RMR.
Which is why I've always found trackers that MFP understands how to synchronize the easier way to go for me (and back in the day Fitbit was the only one sending daily TDEE correctly, and daily tdee is what MFP expected)
**And we've assumed you're 100% successful in logging correctly without over or underestimates1 -
@PAV8888
- I choose Sedentary with MFP, which is definitely the right choice. I WFH, and most days I don't leave the house. I've no idea what my daily step count is, but it can't be all that high. Aside from my intentional workouts, I'm not active.
- I was referring to the compensatory effect of NEAT being reduced by exercise. I've seen conflicting studies on this. It seems like high intensity cardio is more likely to result in loss of NEAT than resistance training or low intensity cardio, and that fits with my personal experience. I've recently taken up a sporting activity on weekend mornings and I feel wiped after that for most of the day. I would not be surprised in the least if my NEAT went down, therefore eating back 100% of those activity calories (even if that estimate were accurate) would be a mistake. If you can find more data on this, that would be great. I've seen sites saying exercise reduces NEAT, then when trying to find the actual studies, one says it does, another says it doesn't.
- I have a couple of reasons to believe my RMR is higher than the statistical average. All calculators assume an average amount of muscle mass for someone my age and weight, but I'm sure I have higher than average muscle mass, which burns more calories. Also, I'm surely eating far more protein than average, which has a higher thermic effect, i.e. more calories burned to process it. Those two things probably add well over 100 calories per day to estimated RMR.
- You're absolutely right about the calories baked in to every hour by MFP, so you have to be careful when adding exercise calories to not double count those. Typically I look at the MET estimates for an activity, and if it's 3-6 say, I'll probably choose 3.5-4, then subtract the 1 which is already baked into MFP. The resulting number is usually a bit lower than the number MFP suggests for that exercise duration.
- I'm confident with the logging. Not saying I'm 100% accurate, but there's no way I'm accidentally over-counting by hundreds every day. I check packaging carefully against every entry I use.
- When looking at my YTD average calories, binge days skew that average higher. I'm sure you've seen the YT videos of people binging many thousands more calories in a day than normal, and tracking their stats after, and going 5,000 over in a day doesn't result in 1.5 pounds of fat gain. There's the thermic effect of processing all that, your body temp probably goes up, your NEAT goes up, etc. We've all been there I'm sure, where we take a few days break for whatever reason and definitely eat more than normal, and a week later it hasn't had the effect on our weight that the raw numbers suggest it should. I'm not saying to ignore those outlier days, I'm saying what we do consistently matters more.0 -
I don't generally log my exercise and don't eat back potential calories burned.1
-
Bottom line with all of this is that if you aren’t meeting your Fatloss goals and you’re eating back all your exercise calories then you may need to re think your equation.2
-
tomcustombuilder wrote: »Bottom line with all of this is that if you aren’t meeting your Fatloss goals and you’re eating back all your exercise calories then you may need to re think your equation.
No. Surely it isn't that easy... :flowerforyou:0 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »Bottom line with all of this is that if you aren’t meeting your Fatloss goals and you’re eating back all your exercise calories then you may need to re think your equation.
Agreed0 -
Winning4EJ wrote: »I have a feeling that for me eating back the calories slows my progress.
Being very accurate, particular, and careful with logging food. Down to the teaspoon and gram, then adding in calories burned can begin to make sense.
Without that extreme care with logging foods, adding in the complexity of calories burned does make sense.
2 -
@Retroguy2000 we cand/could have fun... but I am sure we're digressing a bit
For thread purposes: Goals have to actually be suitable and appropriate to begin with and then logging estimates are where we start. Beyond that adjustments have to be made. Both in terms of figuring out what goals can be achieved and in terms of what it will take to get there.Retroguy2000 wrote: »I choose Sedentary with MFP, which is definitely the right choice. I WFH, and most days I don't leave the house. I've no idea what my daily step count is, but it can't be all that high.
AF of 1.25 = MFP sedentary would be centered around 3500 steps / 35 minutes of moderate (MET 3) activity or equivalent level of expenditure from even more or less vigorous activity. By the time you're hitting 5,000 steps (50 minutes of MET 3.0) you would be getting to AF of 1.4 which is lightly active."Retroguy2000 wrote:- I was referring to the compensatory effect of NEAT being reduced by exercise. I've seen conflicting studies on this. It seems like high intensity cardio is more likely to result in loss of NEAT than resistance training or low intensity cardio
I don't see how that can ever get universally quantified but your observation fits my personal experience. I would actually change it to include "challenging for each individual" level of activity. For example resistance training for myself would have similar effects to higher intensity cardio in terms of slowing me down the rest of the day. It is definitely the reason why I primarily engage in LISS activity... which can still provide one with remarkably positive health results--which is why I tend to pounce on people who dismiss simple walking especially for previously non active beginners."Retroguy2000 wrote:therefore eating back 100% of those activity calories (even if that estimate were accurate) would be a mistake.
The effect is the same, I guess, but the error as you say yourself is not the exercise. it is the reduction in NEAT. The exercise still burned the calories. This is where the larger averages come into play. In the end we don't HAVE to be 100% accurate as long as the long term averages provide enough meaningful direction."Retroguy2000 wrote:where we take a few days break for whatever reason and definitely eat more than normal, and a week later it hasn't had the effect on our weight that the raw numbers suggest it should. I'm not saying to ignore those outlier days, I'm saying what we do consistently matters more.
You may find it interesting to get one of the gadget watches and see what it "graphs" for you. There's quite a few not very expensive ones that will do the job without spending the $'s associate with the "big boys".
I prefer to think of my daily energy maintenance "point" as a bit of an elastic range. Definitely for myself, when balanced at maintenance there is both resistance to weight loss and to weight gain unless and until the resistance is overwhelmed by persistent and sufficiently large (but not too large) caloric adjustments.
And yes, in my case, it there is more resistance towards losing than towards gaining... as I am sure is the case for many on MFP.
It is almost fascinating to see "resting heart rate" increases and decreases correlate remarkably with logged caloric overages and deficits. Nail growing is another interesting one, especially when having an overage day after a prolonged deficit. My personal observation is that the **occasional** "extra food" or "not enough food" days are, to a substantial degree, going to be absorbed by the body's ability to adapt.
And yes this does argue that diet breaks and re-feeds make sense from the point of view of optimization, The question is whether they always make sense for the people involved. As what is optimal in the abstract is not always optimal for the individual.
Oh well.... hopefully all this is of some interest to someone!
1
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
- 424 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