Bad advice - Don't log/eat back exercise calories
AshwinA7
Posts: 102 Member
What started out as an interesting article from Fitocracy ended up a lot stranger than I thought.
http://www.fitocracy.com/knowledge/does-exercise-alone-lead-to-weight-loss/
Basically, his theory is that tracking your exercise and eating back exercise calories is a bad thing because "30 minutes on a treadmill makes people think it can 'afford' a person a Krispy Kreme" (I mean... it might).
So in his mind, tracking exercise calories doesn't work because it takes "years of refinement" to properly eat back exercise calories.
I understand the intention but the actual information just seems wrong, at least according to what has worked for me and others on the forum.
A final quote from the end of the article:
>>"If you do cardio, incorporate it into your regimen. Don’t translate it into calories or currency. Rather, enjoy it as part of the overall process in your fitness journey.
http://www.fitocracy.com/knowledge/does-exercise-alone-lead-to-weight-loss/
Basically, his theory is that tracking your exercise and eating back exercise calories is a bad thing because "30 minutes on a treadmill makes people think it can 'afford' a person a Krispy Kreme" (I mean... it might).
So in his mind, tracking exercise calories doesn't work because it takes "years of refinement" to properly eat back exercise calories.
I understand the intention but the actual information just seems wrong, at least according to what has worked for me and others on the forum.
A final quote from the end of the article:
>>"If you do cardio, incorporate it into your regimen. Don’t translate it into calories or currency. Rather, enjoy it as part of the overall process in your fitness journey.
0
Replies
-
To be fair, he is talking about people that exercise w/o changing anything about their dietary intake. Eating back your exercise calories only works if you are making sure you haven't already eaten them back before you started
0 -
I don't understand what about tracking net calories takes 'years of refinement'?0
-
Actually, I asked my nutritionist about this today. She said that it is very hard to estimate actual calories burned due to the law of diminishing returns. So the first week that you do an exercise, you might burn the amount of calories the machine says (or what it says when you look it up online, etc.), but as you continue to do that same exercise, you burn less and less over time. So three months from now, you running for 30 minutes on the treadmill at 9 minute mile speed will burn fewer calories as it did on day one....and it can be the difference between 350 calories on the first day to 100 calories in month three.
That is why I try not to eat all of my calories. She suggested eating fewer on the days you don't work out and "slightly" higher on days you do.....but certainly not the full amount because it's probably an inaccurate number.0 -
wonderwoman234 wrote: »Actually, I asked my nutritionist about this today. She said that it is very hard to estimate actual calories burned due to the law of diminishing returns. So the first week that you do an exercise, you might burn the amount of calories the machine says (or what it says when you look it up online, etc.), but as you continue to do that same exercise, you burn less and less over time. So three months from now, you running for 30 minutes on the treadmill at 9 minute mile speed will burn fewer calories as it did on day one....and it can be the difference between 350 calories on the first day to 100 calories in month three.
That is why I try not to eat all of my calories. She suggested eating fewer on the days you don't work out and "slightly" higher on days you do.....but certainly not the full amount because it's probably an inaccurate number.
Your nutritionist is confusing effort with physics.
Calories burned are to do with weight/distance/duration - not fitness levels or perceived effort.
A fit, muscular 200lb person walking up stairs will burn the same number of calories as an unfit, fat 200lb person walking up stairs. There may be very small efficiencies that come into it but because it's easy for one and hard for the other has very little to do with energy expended.0 -
I think it's important to consider that some of those calories are already accounted for too. For example if you burn 400 calories in 40 minutes of exercise, you would have burned x number of calories doing nothing anyway. Plus, you may have already accounted for some extra calories in your activity level, right?0
-
wonderwoman234 wrote: »Actually, I asked my nutritionist about this today. She said that it is very hard to estimate actual calories burned due to the law of diminishing returns. So the first week that you do an exercise, you might burn the amount of calories the machine says (or what it says when you look it up online, etc.), but as you continue to do that same exercise, you burn less and less over time. So three months from now, you running for 30 minutes on the treadmill at 9 minute mile speed will burn fewer calories as it did on day one....and it can be the difference between 350 calories on the first day to 100 calories in month three.
That is why I try not to eat all of my calories. She suggested eating fewer on the days you don't work out and "slightly" higher on days you do.....but certainly not the full amount because it's probably an inaccurate number.
Your nutritionist is confusing effort with physics.
Calories burned are to do with weight/distance/duration - not fitness levels or perceived effort.
A fit, muscular 200lb person walking up stairs will burn the same number of calories as an unfit, fat 200lb person walking up stairs. There may be very small efficiencies that come into it but because it's easy for one and hard for the other has very little to do with energy expended.
Actually fitness level has a lot to do with calories burned. Hence V02Max. The more fit you are the more oxygen you can push through your body, so even with what seems like less effort you can actually burn more calories. Calories burned is much closer linked to oxygen uptake than it is HR, for those that use and HRM to get an estimate.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Where I think there is value though is saying that equating calories burned to food (ate a donut, now I need to burn X amount of calories) isn't the healthiest way to approach the relationship between diet and exercise.0
-
I didn't read the article, but I definitely see a lot of people overestimate their burns. I gained a ton of weight (and unwanted muscle) from doing long, intense workouts and then eating to hunger levels after because I thought I could "afford" it. 3 hours of strength training still doesn't "buy" you a bacon cheeseburger.
My method now is low-intensity exercise (which makes me less hungry), tracking cardio exercise at 50% of what I think is my true burn, and eating back to my new target. I don't track strength training or core workouts at all because I don't think I'm burning much.
I personally wouldn't be able to get through my workouts on the same amount of food I eat when I don't work out (target is 1450/day). Eating back half is a good balance of managing hunger and not overdoing it.0 -
Where I think there is value though is saying that equating calories burned to food (ate a donut, now I need to burn X amount of calories) isn't the healthiest way to approach the relationship between diet and exercise.
Actually, making this equation is the only way I've managed to lose weight after years of unsuccessfully trying. Otherwise it's just guesswork. This is the basis of CICO. Not all of us actually enjoy exercise. I exercise to burn calories and "earn" food.0 -
It's like saying "Working to earn money isn't the healthiest way to approach the relationship between your work and your financial state. You should work for the enjoyment of it and because it's improves your mental state."
I like my job more than most people like their jobs, but I wouldn't do it if I wasn't getting paid.0 -
Thought the article was pretty dumb really - the author seems to revel in being the 1% that thinks the way he does....
This struck a chord: "In your average person, the simple act of measuring exercise is what ends up sabotaging your weight loss."
Actually my experience is the opposite. For years I exercised without even considering the calorie burn (it was for fitness and strength after all....) and exercise never resulted in weight loss as I clearly ate more to compensate. Fat and fit would describe me quite accurately for 20 years!
When I did switch to estimating both calories in and calories out I lost weight and now maintain my weight. It didn't take "years of refinement either". Just a little research and a willingness to make adjustments based on results.
0 -
Where I think there is value though is saying that equating calories burned to food (ate a donut, now I need to burn X amount of calories) isn't the healthiest way to approach the relationship between diet and exercise.
Actually, making this equation is the only way I've managed to lose weight after years of unsuccessfully trying. Otherwise it's just guesswork. This is the basis of CICO. Not all of us actually enjoy exercise. I exercise to burn calories and "earn" food.
That is fine if it works for you, but it still isn't the healthiest way to look at food and exercise. It's easily abused and can lead to ED through exercise.0 -
Where I think there is value though is saying that equating calories burned to food (ate a donut, now I need to burn X amount of calories) isn't the healthiest way to approach the relationship between diet and exercise.
Actually I make that comparison in my head, but without the eating beforehand in 9)% of the time. I do the exercise, then remind myself how much exercise it takes for me to earn enough calories for a Mars bar. I then remember how much hard work it took and more than likely dont eat it. It really puts things into perspective.
0 -
When I was eating 1500 calories and not eating back any calories burned by cardio (via HRM estimate) I lost closer to 3 pounds a week which I was not something I wanted to do. For someone with a lot smaller of a calorie deficit eating back exercise can be detrimental to weight loss (especially if the exercise was taken into consideration with their activity level, I always set to sedimentary because I work at a desk job.)
It's good advice for people with low deficits not to eat back all of their calories, especially if they are rough estimates or worse MFP default estimates (those are insanely high).0 -
I had a V02 max test recently as well as for my lactate thresholds. It told me exactly how many calories I am burning at particular heart rates. It is definitely lower than what my Garmin tells me my calorie expenditure is.
My kinesiologist wants me to work out in a fasted state and then eat back the calories I burn within 60 minutes after exercise. I believe it is to support muscle recovery. Is anyone else doing this and found it to make much difference?
At first it was difficult to eat that much after a workout, as I naturally don't feel hungry (though I do usually feel ravenous within a few hours). But I'm getting used to it. My weight loss has been slow so far, but I have seen improvements in my measurements.
I will redo the tests every 3 months as long as I keep paying for his program.0 -
Where I think there is value though is saying that equating calories burned to food (ate a donut, now I need to burn X amount of calories) isn't the healthiest way to approach the relationship between diet and exercise.
Actually I make that comparison in my head, but without the eating beforehand in 9)% of the time. I do the exercise, then remind myself how much exercise it takes for me to earn enough calories for a Mars bar. I then remember how much hard work it took and more than likely dont eat it. It really puts things into perspective.
There is a nuance there for sure. I mean, I know on the days that I go to CrossFit, I'm going to eat a little bit more and maybe have more room for a treat. Where it gets tricky is when exercise becomes punitive. I ate this, so I must do that....on a regular basis. Slippery slope, especially for people prone to obsessing about calories. That's why I say, do what works for you - but it still remains a valuable point to not use exercise as punishment for eating.0 -
If you are diligent eating back your calories just makes sense because you are accounting for exercise you actually did. Your deficit is already built in to your calorie intake for MFP. If you estimate how much exercise you will do in a week and then base your calorie intake on that I would think there is more room for error or the occasional missed gym day, etc.
The mind set that leads to "oh I earned this donut because I ran a mile today" would be the same mindset that leads to missed gym days and overeating by not diligently counting calories in the first place. Someone who is using the eat your calories back correctly will know that one mile does not equal a donut, generally speaking.0 -
Where I think there is value though is saying that equating calories burned to food (ate a donut, now I need to burn X amount of calories) isn't the healthiest way to approach the relationship between diet and exercise.
Actually, making this equation is the only way I've managed to lose weight after years of unsuccessfully trying. Otherwise it's just guesswork. This is the basis of CICO. Not all of us actually enjoy exercise. I exercise to burn calories and "earn" food.
That is fine if it works for you, but it still isn't the healthiest way to look at food and exercise. It's easily abused and can lead to ED through exercise.
I'm sorry if you struggle with eating disorders. It's not a problem for me.
I have my caloric goals set for my standard exercise levels, and then I eat more on the days I work out. That's because my exercise is sporadic AND my calorie level is set very low, so I need more food with even a small amount of exercise. If i eat a 150 calorie energy bar to get through my workout, I should make sure I burn at least 150 calories (well, for me, 300, because I track exercise at 50%). Otherwise I should have not eaten the energy bar and stayed on the couch.
And definitely if I go on a 6-hour hike on Saturday, I need more food than the day before, when I sat at my desk for 8 hours.
Some people have their caloric goals set for their average exercise levels and use a TDEE method. That probably works better if your exercise level is the same every day or every week.
0 -
Where I think there is value though is saying that equating calories burned to food (ate a donut, now I need to burn X amount of calories) isn't the healthiest way to approach the relationship between diet and exercise.
Actually I make that comparison in my head, but without the eating beforehand in 9)% of the time. I do the exercise, then remind myself how much exercise it takes for me to earn enough calories for a Mars bar. I then remember how much hard work it took and more than likely dont eat it. It really puts things into perspective.
There is a nuance there for sure. I mean, I know on the days that I go to CrossFit, I'm going to eat a little bit more and maybe have more room for a treat. Where it gets tricky is when exercise becomes punitive. I ate this, so I must do that....on a regular basis. Slippery slope, especially for people prone to obsessing about calories. That's why I say, do what works for you - but it still remains a valuable point to not use exercise as punishment for eating.
Agreed ... and for some of us the reverse ... we shouldn't use food as reward for exercise either. It may all add up correctly and we may lose weight, but for some of us it reinforces an already unhealthy relationship.0 -
It depends on the method you are using. I don't understand why this concept is so difficult for people...it's 5th grade frackin' math. I'm quickly losing hope in society at large...it seem like most people can't even grasp very basic concepts.0
-
Where I think there is value though is saying that equating calories burned to food (ate a donut, now I need to burn X amount of calories) isn't the healthiest way to approach the relationship between diet and exercise.
Actually, making this equation is the only way I've managed to lose weight after years of unsuccessfully trying. Otherwise it's just guesswork. This is the basis of CICO. Not all of us actually enjoy exercise. I exercise to burn calories and "earn" food.
That is fine if it works for you, but it still isn't the healthiest way to look at food and exercise. It's easily abused and can lead to ED through exercise.
I'm sorry if you struggle with eating disorders. It's not a problem for me.
I have my caloric goals set for my standard exercise levels, and then I eat more on the days I work out. That's because my exercise is sporadic AND my calorie level is set very low, so I need more food with even a small amount of exercise. If i eat a 150 calorie energy bar to get through my workout, I should make sure I burn at least 150 calories (well, for me, 300, because I track exercise at 50%). Otherwise I should have not eaten the energy bar and stayed on the couch.
And definitely if I go on a 6-hour hike on Saturday, I need more food than the day before, when I sat at my desk for 8 hours.
Some people have their caloric goals set for their average exercise levels and use a TDEE method. That probably works better if your exercise level is the same every day or every week.
Did I say I have an active eating disorder? No, I didn't.
I said do what works for you - that's great.
But that doesn't mean that my point is not valuable or that it is wrong.0 -
wonderwoman234 wrote: »...and it can be the difference between 350 calories on the first day to 100 calories in month three.
More likely the difference between 350 calories and 330 calories.
0 -
Samenamenewlook wrote: »Where I think there is value though is saying that equating calories burned to food (ate a donut, now I need to burn X amount of calories) isn't the healthiest way to approach the relationship between diet and exercise.
Actually I make that comparison in my head, but without the eating beforehand in 9)% of the time. I do the exercise, then remind myself how much exercise it takes for me to earn enough calories for a Mars bar. I then remember how much hard work it took and more than likely dont eat it. It really puts things into perspective.
There is a nuance there for sure. I mean, I know on the days that I go to CrossFit, I'm going to eat a little bit more and maybe have more room for a treat. Where it gets tricky is when exercise becomes punitive. I ate this, so I must do that....on a regular basis. Slippery slope, especially for people prone to obsessing about calories. That's why I say, do what works for you - but it still remains a valuable point to not use exercise as punishment for eating.
Agreed ... and for some of us the reverse ... we shouldn't use food as reward for exercise either. It may all add up correctly and we may lose weight, but for some of us it reinforces an already unhealthy relationship.
This is also an excellent point. We often overestimate our burns and using food as a reward is an easy way to overeat if you are not weighing food.0 -
Nope - higher fitness levels allow you to do more, that's why a fitter person can burn more calories. So a fitter person can cycle faster for longer as an example.wonderwoman234 wrote: »Actually, I asked my nutritionist about this today. She said that it is very hard to estimate actual calories burned due to the law of diminishing returns. So the first week that you do an exercise, you might burn the amount of calories the machine says (or what it says when you look it up online, etc.), but as you continue to do that same exercise, you burn less and less over time. So three months from now, you running for 30 minutes on the treadmill at 9 minute mile speed will burn fewer calories as it did on day one....and it can be the difference between 350 calories on the first day to 100 calories in month three.
That is why I try not to eat all of my calories. She suggested eating fewer on the days you don't work out and "slightly" higher on days you do.....but certainly not the full amount because it's probably an inaccurate number.
Your nutritionist is confusing effort with physics.
Calories burned are to do with weight/distance/duration - not fitness levels or perceived effort.
A fit, muscular 200lb person walking up stairs will burn the same number of calories as an unfit, fat 200lb person walking up stairs. There may be very small efficiencies that come into it but because it's easy for one and hard for the other has very little to do with energy expended.
Actually fitness level has a lot to do with calories burned. Hence V02Max. The more fit you are the more oxygen you can push through your body, so even with what seems like less effort you can actually burn more calories. Calories burned is much closer linked to oxygen uptake than it is HR, for those that use and HRM to get an estimate.
Agree about HR though - many people don't understand how they work unfortunately. I'm creating much more power for a lower HR now than a few years ago so an uncalibrated HRM will be way out for me.
I used a sophisticated cycle trainer the other day with a power meter. An unfit person working hard creating 200w of power is burning the same calories as a super fit (high VO2 max) person cruising along creating 200w of power. The unfit person just won't be able to sustain it for long.
0 -
I agree that seeing food as anything other than fuel (or something to be shared and enjoyed and recipes/cooking skills as a growing knowledge base), - seeing it as currency, punishment, rewards, in my brain all of those things turned into habits lead to an unhealthy relationship with food.
this does not mean I disagree with eating or not eating back extra calories burned during a workout - that is personal fuel management and works differently (even if only slightly) in each body and brain.0 -
Where I think there is value though is saying that equating calories burned to food (ate a donut, now I need to burn X amount of calories) isn't the healthiest way to approach the relationship between diet and exercise.
Actually, making this equation is the only way I've managed to lose weight after years of unsuccessfully trying. Otherwise it's just guesswork. This is the basis of CICO. Not all of us actually enjoy exercise. I exercise to burn calories and "earn" food.
That is fine if it works for you, but it still isn't the healthiest way to look at food and exercise. It's easily abused and can lead to ED through exercise.
I'm sorry if you struggle with eating disorders. It's not a problem for me.
I have my caloric goals set for my standard exercise levels, and then I eat more on the days I work out. That's because my exercise is sporadic AND my calorie level is set very low, so I need more food with even a small amount of exercise. If i eat a 150 calorie energy bar to get through my workout, I should make sure I burn at least 150 calories (well, for me, 300, because I track exercise at 50%). Otherwise I should have not eaten the energy bar and stayed on the couch.
And definitely if I go on a 6-hour hike on Saturday, I need more food than the day before, when I sat at my desk for 8 hours.
Some people have their caloric goals set for their average exercise levels and use a TDEE method. That probably works better if your exercise level is the same every day or every week.
Did I say I have an active eating disorder? No, I didn't.
I said do what works for you - that's great.
But that doesn't mean that my point is not valuable or that it is wrong.
The only place where we agree is that it doesn't make sense to eat a donut you didn't really want and then feel like you have to "exercise it off". I prefer to pre-plan. It's probably smarter to do the math and then decide you can't afford the donut after all.
But if you want a donut and you want to achieve your goals, then yes, you need to either find 300 calories to not eat, or burn 300 calories through activity. Or you can call it a "treat" and go over your calories that day, which is no big deal if it really is "just once". But if that becomes a regular thing, you become overweight. Better to make your behavior match your goals every single day.
I've definitely gone to the gym on Saturday afternoon knowing that there's a special dinner that night. Seems healthier to me than sitting on my butt all day.
It's not a punishment. It's an equation that has to balance. Mine is Calories In - Calories Out Through Exercise <= 1450.
On 1450 calories/day net, I MUST exercise if I want to eat more than the basics. It really is that simple.
0 -
I don't log any exercise that's less than 90 min b/c that's my NORMAL. that's also why I don't log any activities I do on a regular basis: house cleaning, vacuuming, gardening, etc. That's my normal. I DO count my weekend long runs and races, though, b/c they're generally 3 hrs or more.
I eat about the same calories every day, regardless of what I do. On weekends and long runs/races, I do eat a little more, but it's not crap. It's just a little more of the same nutritious foods I ALWAYS EAT, b/c my body needs it for recovery. Eating crap would retard the recovery, which I don't want because I want to run nearly every day.0 -
Where I think there is value though is saying that equating calories burned to food (ate a donut, now I need to burn X amount of calories) isn't the healthiest way to approach the relationship between diet and exercise.
Actually, making this equation is the only way I've managed to lose weight after years of unsuccessfully trying. Otherwise it's just guesswork. This is the basis of CICO. Not all of us actually enjoy exercise. I exercise to burn calories and "earn" food.
That is fine if it works for you, but it still isn't the healthiest way to look at food and exercise. It's easily abused and can lead to ED through exercise.
I'm sorry if you struggle with eating disorders. It's not a problem for me.
I have my caloric goals set for my standard exercise levels, and then I eat more on the days I work out. That's because my exercise is sporadic AND my calorie level is set very low, so I need more food with even a small amount of exercise. If i eat a 150 calorie energy bar to get through my workout, I should make sure I burn at least 150 calories (well, for me, 300, because I track exercise at 50%). Otherwise I should have not eaten the energy bar and stayed on the couch.
And definitely if I go on a 6-hour hike on Saturday, I need more food than the day before, when I sat at my desk for 8 hours.
Some people have their caloric goals set for their average exercise levels and use a TDEE method. That probably works better if your exercise level is the same every day or every week.
Did I say I have an active eating disorder? No, I didn't.
I said do what works for you - that's great.
But that doesn't mean that my point is not valuable or that it is wrong.
The only place where we agree is that it doesn't make sense to eat a donut you didn't really want and then feel like you have to "exercise it off". I prefer to pre-plan. It's probably smarter to do the math and then decide you can't afford the donut after all.
But if you want a donut and you want to achieve your goals, then yes, you need to either find 300 calories to not eat, or burn 300 calories through activity. Or you can call it a "treat" and go over your calories that day, which is no big deal if it really is "just once". But if that becomes a regular thing, you become overweight. Better to make your behavior match your goals every single day.
I've definitely gone to the gym on Saturday afternoon knowing that there's a special dinner that night. Seems healthier to me than sitting on my butt all day.
It's not a punishment. It's an equation that has to balance. Mine is Calories In - Calories Out Through Exercise <= 1450.
On 1450 calories/day net, I MUST exercise if I want to eat more than the basics. It really is that simple.
You can argue with me all day long if you want using yourself as a case study. I really don't care. If it works for you - GREAT. Go for it. Gold star.
My point was very simple. Using exercise as a means to "erase" foods consumed or using food as a "reward" for doing exercise is not the best way to look at the relationship between exercise and food for some people. Not everyone is like you. Just because that mental approach is what works for you, doesn't mean it works for everyone and it doesn't make my point any less valid.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 429 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions