When i exercize should set it to adjust calorie goal?

howar1rc

I burn 1000 - 1500 calories 3x a week riding a bike. There's no way I'm adding 1000 to my daily goal of 2400. What do people do here? Just turn it off?

Nibbler76

I don’t allow calorie adjustment following exercise as I’m trying to loose weight. I think if your goal is not to loose weight then it’s ok to allow calorie adjustment.

Lietchi

I eat all of my exercise calories (as calculated by my fitness watch), because time has shown that it is accurate for me. Well, not quite accurate, I actually need more calories than my watch estimates.

I don't necessarily eat exercise calories on the day I 'earn' them, I might spread it out over the following days - I look at my daily intake but also look at the weekly view.

Whether or not to eat exercise calories depends on:
- how accurate the exercise calorie burns are (for my running, I use a reliable calculator to compare, for cycling I believe a power meter is the most accurate source)
- how accurate your logging is
- how accurate your selected activity level is (and whether or not you included your exercise in it - using MFP as intended means not incursion exercise in your activity level, but logging it separately)
- how statistically average your metabolism is (MFP, like any calculator, uses statistical averages but many people don't fall perfectly within those averages)
The best thing is to choose a strategy, stick with it for 4 to 6 weeks (1 or 2 mensuel cycles for women) and compare your achieved weight trend with your actual weight trend. And then adjust accordingly.

wm3796

Estimated exercise calories are only that “estimated” by whatever device is calculating them. It is common to state higher calorie burn that actually happened. I had success with only adding half of those calories back or could just turn it off and reevaluate weight loss in about 4 weeks.

AnnPT77

howar1rc wrote: »

I burn 1000 - 1500 calories 3x a week riding a bike. There's no way I'm adding 1000 to my daily goal of 2400. What do people do here? Just turn it off?

How far/fast are you riding to burn that much? Is it a bicycle, or a stationary bike? If a stationary bike, does it give you an average watts estimate for the ride? What is giving you that estimate: MFP? Fitness tracker? Bike?

1000-1500 calories is a big number. It would need to be a reasonably long or fast ride to burn that many calories, or maybe a somewhat more medium speed/distance on a bicycle (as distinct from a stationary bike) for someone who is at a very high bodyweight.

I do the thing MFP's designed for: I set my base calories excluding intentional exercise, then estimate exercise calories carefully and eat them all back. I lost from class 1 obese to a healthy weight in just less than a year, and have maintained a healthy weight for 8 years since, doing it that way. It can work.

The other method is to get a calorie estimate from a TDEE calculator and average in exercise before subtracting the calorie deficit needed for sensible weight loss. (I like this TDEE calculator, personally: https://www.sailrabbit.com/bmr/ .)

Either of those methods can work.

Lietchi's right: Any accurate exercise calories can be eaten on other days, since it's average calories that really matter. Our bodies don't reset at midnight, even though MFP does.

If your 1000-1500 calories is accurate, that would equate to about a pound of body fat per week. Are you trying to lose weight, and if so, what weight loss rate are you targeting?

Fastest weight loss isn't necessarily best weight loss. Too-fast loss increases health risks, among other downsides. IMO, losing more than 0.5-1% of current weight per week is a bad idea, with a bias toward the lower end of that range unless severely obese and under close medical supervision for nutrient deficiencies or health complications.

If someone selects a slow weight loss rate goal, then does modest amounts of exercise on top of that, and lets the exercise increase the weight loss rate, that's probably fine.

At the other end of the continuum, selecting a fast weight loss rate (1% of current weight per week or more) and doing a bunch of exercise on top of that, eating zero exercise calories . . . that's playing with fire, both in terms of health and sustainability long enough to lose a meaningful total amount of weight.

In between those extremes, it's a question of how much health risk a person wants to take on. I don't like taking risks with my health, personally.

Best wishes, no matter what you decide!

P.S. I asked the average watts question because there's a decent formula for calculating biking calories based on accurate average watts. Some stationary bikes estimate/measure watts. Regular bicycles can, if equipped with a power meter, which some serious cyclists have for training reasons.

cmriverside

Keep it simple.

• Use the Goals setup the way they are explained.
  
• Set it for "Lose 1 pound per week."
  
• Be as honest as you can with the Activity Setting
  
• Log food and exercise and eat some of the earned Exercise calories.
  

That's the way the site is set up to be used.

In 4-6 weeks you'll have a good set of trending data on which to base your numbers. Right now it's all a guess based on your consistency, honesty and accuracy, all of which are not to be believed until proven out by data.

howar1rc

@AnnPT77 I use Garmin watch & GPS with a chest strap heart rate monitor & power meter for cycling. This week I've ridden 80mi in 3:42. average 21.6mph @ 220 watts (weighted average) and 2971 calories. I have a 68mi, 18mph gravel ride this sat. The goal is to lose 1lb/week to get from 170lb to 158 (and I'm 5'7" and 40 y.o.). I finished the race season 20th in the state. I feel like I'm doing the work but if I make better choices with food, I'll be much more competitve by April. I also want to do it in a healthy way.

@cmriverside I will explore goals today and set that correctly.

Thanks guys, I'm new here so I appreciate the help. I think I'm 3 weeks into logging everything I eat.

AnnPT77

Maybe you already know all this, since it's outlined in many places. If you've ridden at an average of 220W, for 3 hours and 42 minutes (3.7 hours), that should be about 2930 calories (220 x 3.7 x 3.6, where 3.6 is a standard factor related to converting from kilojoules). That's still an estimate, but a better than average way of estimating cycling calories. As an accomplished cyclist, your gross efficiency could be higher than average, so that estimate could be high.

If your base calorie needs estimate hasn't included any kind of allowance for those calories, then your performance is likely to be better if you eat at least a fair fraction of them. It's fine to spread them over the week, or a couple of days, or any convenient number of nearby days. Heck, save some up for Christmas holidays, even (though that might have sub-ideal performance implications in the shorter run, plus blow-out calories may be less translated into body weight than gradually spaced-out ones).

It sounds like you have 5-6 months (20-24 weeks) to get from 170 to 158, so 12 pounds. Half a pound a week, or a bit faster, would get you there. That would theoretically require a 250-calorie daily deficit on average.

Ignoring your cycling calories completely is a bad idea IMO. Averaging them into calorie goal, or adding them separately but spreading them over more than the cycling days should be OK.

Your cycling calories alone would be close to a pound a week, since a pound is roughly 3500 calories (maybe close to a pound, since the formula above assumes an average gross efficiency). Therefore, another option in your specific case would be to go a month, eating estimated weight-maintenance calories, without factoring in the cycling, and see what kind of calorie deficit the cycling alone creates for you - see how much weight you lose on average over that time period, and how your performance goes. My guess would be that that would be somewhat physically stressful (suboptimal for performance), since your calorie needs truly are higher on cycling days and the recovery day(s) after, but if your important races start in April, it's maybe a viable experiment.

Possibly losing fast when you have time to be gradual is likely to be bad for performance. A pound a week might be OK, but certainly not more. With a pound a week, you'd have some time before April to eat at actual maintenance (including a realistic estimate of the cycling calories) and recover in case there's a performance hit from losing, but that's just one option.

Advice above from various folks is good, to run a 4-6 week experiment (while doing something reasonable but not extreme), then use the results of the experiment to fine-tune your goals (and how you spread the exercise calories to maintain solid performance during training).

Truth in advertising: I'm a short-endurance athlete (on-water and machine rower, not an elite one) and personal experience plus coaching education in that is where this advice is coming from. It's just an opinion from some random idiot on the internet, basically.

Best wishes!