Calories and exercise
helentvy
Posts: 6 Member
I'm really struggling understanding the calories I use whilst exercising, my daily cal is 1410 and today with walking and swimming I've burned 1480 calories do I need to eat those additional calories as well as my 1410 to lose weight I've lost 10 lbs in 4 weeks it's just not coming off like I thought it would pls help
0
Replies
-
Hi!
I'm just starting out as well and had the same question!
If you daily calorie intake is to be 1410 - then you keep on track with that. Don't eat extra to replace calories you've burned extra. The idea is to burn more calories then you eat everyday.
I might be wrong - (as I said I 'm just learning myself) but that is the way I understand it.0 -
Hi, thanks for replying, that's what I've always thought but when reading up on weight loss I've read that you need to eat what you've burned so totally confused lol0
-
I eat back a percentage of my exercise calories. You will lose weight since you are still eating at a deficit.0
-
I'm really struggling understanding the calories I use whilst exercising, my daily cal is 1410 and today with walking and swimming I've burned 1480 calories do I need to eat those additional calories as well as my 1410 to lose weight I've lost 10 lbs in 4 weeks it's just not coming off like I thought it would pls help
Alright, a few things that I'm going to address here.
1. You say you've lost 10 pounds in 4 weeks. This is more than the 2 pounds per week that's generally considered a healthy threshold for weight loss. It's not unusual to lose more than that at the beginning of a program, but the weight is coming off at the pace it should be. It sounds like you really don't need to accelerate it.
2. Yes, the program is designed for you to eat back your exercise calories. When MFP figures your calorie goal it doesn't take exercise into account, just the activity level you entered (most people choose sedentary). It creates a calorie goal with a safe deficit built in. When you exercise, you increase that deficit, possibly larger than your body can handle. The larger the deficit, the more risk there is for muscle loss, nutrient deficiencies, etc. That's why MFP adds the calories you burn back in to keep your deficit at a safe and steady level.
3. MFP and some other calculators have a tendency to overestimate your calories burned. If you're using MFP's estimates then it's often recommended to eat back about 50-75% of your burned calories, just to be safe.0 -
Claudialane doesn't understand how MFP works either.
While true you eat less than what you burn - that is in TOTAL. After all, if a bigger deficit was better, why not just stop eating?
MFP, by your selection of non-exercise activity level (sedentary, right?) calculates a maintenance figure. Say 2000.
So you select weight loss goal, that takes calories off that figure daily. Say 1 lb loss, or 500 calories off.
Eating goal is 2000 - 500 = 1500 daily sedentary lifestyle no exercise.
But now you do some walking for 1 hr. And you burn 100 calories.
Your maintenance for the day is now actually 2000 + 100 = 2100
Remove same deficit 500 calories 2100-500 = 1600 eating goal.
Same deficit. Same eating less than what you burned daily.
That's how MFP works. Many folks get confused because first MFP isn't clear about it, though the increase in your daily goal should be rather obviously. Most are blindly following a number anyway, why not blindly follow the new number too.
Second, most other sites ask you what your PLANNED exercise is going to be, estimate what your maintenance would be on average with exercise included, and then take a deficit.
MyFitnessPal I guess is pal because to eat more, you have to exercise. But you also get the deficit whether you do or not.
And if you are walking the speeds in the exercise database flat, you are burning those calories. It's not much, true, unless you go faster.0 -
So you're saying that MFP has set your daily calorie intake at 1410, and that your exercise burns an additional 1480 calories? So that when you look at your homepage it tells you that you're netting -70 (negative 70) calories?
If that's correct: YES- eat your exercise calories!! At least some of them. MFP has already calculated a deficit into the calorie goal that it gave you (1410). Now if you work off 1480 calories, then you're netting negative calories and you've created an additional deficit- one so large that it will be unhealthy in the long-run. On the basic MFP setup you need to eat your exercise calories.
BUT- you need to be careful not to overestimate your exercise calories. For example, MFP frequently overestimates exercise calories, so if your estimate comes from the MFP database rather than a heart rate monitor, then you may only want to eat 50-75% of them back. You also need to make sure that you aren't including regular daily activities (such as walking) as explicit exercise unless you set up your MFP account as sedentary.
For more good information on this topic, read this thread: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/818082-exercise-calories-again-wtf0 -
If you're truly burning that many calories during your workout, then you definitely should be eating more than 1410 calories per day. Are you using a heart rate monitor or are you just guesstimating how much you're burning?0
-
I'm really struggling understanding the calories I use whilst exercising, my daily cal is 1410 and today with walking and swimming I've burned 1480 calories do I need to eat those additional calories as well as my 1410 to lose weight I've lost 10 lbs in 4 weeks it's just not coming off like I thought it would pls help
I'm told to eat just a portion of your exercise calories back. So that you are still in deficit. Otherwise, you won't lose weight!0 -
When walking I use endomondo to track my calories which is then transferred onto mfp and that is where I get my calories from could this be a true reading or over estimated how am I best recording what my calories usage is when exercising0
-
I'm really struggling understanding the calories I use whilst exercising, my daily cal is 1410 and today with walking and swimming I've burned 1480 calories do I need to eat those additional calories as well as my 1410 to lose weight I've lost 10 lbs in 4 weeks it's just not coming off like I thought it would pls help
I'm told to eat just a portion of your exercise calories back. So that you are still in deficit. Otherwise, you won't lose weight!
In correct - read above posts so you can understand the tool you are using. Tools incorrectly used can hurt you as worst, at best you just don't get what you wanted from them.0 -
I'm really struggling understanding the calories I use whilst exercising, my daily cal is 1410 and today with walking and swimming I've burned 1480 calories do I need to eat those additional calories as well as my 1410 to lose weight I've lost 10 lbs in 4 weeks it's just not coming off like I thought it would pls help
Alright, a few things that I'm going to address here.
1. You say you've lost 10 pounds in 4 weeks. This is more than the 2 pounds per week that's generally considered a healthy threshold for weight loss. It's not unusual to lose more than that at the beginning of a program, but the weight is coming off at the pace it should be. It sounds like you really don't need to accelerate it.
2. Yes, the program is designed for you to eat back your exercise calories. When MFP figures your calorie goal it doesn't take exercise into account, just the activity level you entered (most people choose sedentary). It creates a calorie goal with a safe deficit built in. When you exercise, you increase that deficit, possibly larger than your body can handle. The larger the deficit, the more risk there is for muscle loss, nutrient deficiencies, etc. That's why MFP adds the calories you burn back in to keep your deficit at a safe and steady level.
3. MFP and some other calculators have a tendency to overestimate your calories burned. If you're using MFP's estimates then it's often recommended to eat back about 50-75% of your burned calories, just to be safe.
This.
And this again. And again, and again, and again.0 -
Also I'm not Hungary so I could struggle on putting extra calories into my diet, oh my god I never thought I would struggle understanding this like I am aarrgghh0
-
When walking I use endomondo to track my calories which is then transferred onto mfp and that is where I get my calories from could this be a true reading or over estimated how am I best recording what my calories usage is when exercising
It's going to use the same formula from studies then that are very accurate for 2-4 mph flat.
The question will be does it have the distance correct?
Time it obviously does.
If you know the distance and time, you know the pace. You know your weight. Use current workout as example.
Use this. Gross option is what Endomondo and MFP and HRM would be reporting, NET is what you would eat back.
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html
Curious how far and how long you walked?0 -
Also I'm not Hungary so I could struggle on putting extra calories into my diet, oh my god I never thought I would struggle understanding this like I am aarrgghh
Hunger is a terrible sign, as there are all kinds of valid reasons you can both screw up those signals, and they can be suppressed.
Besides, many ended up with being here by listening to hunger signals.
Understanding isn't hard.
You need to eat less than you burn.
You are trying to estimate what you burn, so you can eat less.
But a reasonable amount will keep you from burning up muscle mass along with fat. Which really stinks later as it's hard to build back, and less muscle is smaller metabolism is lower eating level.
Meaning it's easier to gain it back later because you have very little room for error.0 -
I'm really struggling understanding the calories I use whilst exercising, my daily cal is 1410 and today with walking and swimming I've burned 1480 calories do I need to eat those additional calories as well as my 1410 to lose weight I've lost 10 lbs in 4 weeks it's just not coming off like I thought it would pls help
here is what I DO.... for my calorie intake LEAN BODY MASS X 14 calories = total daily calorie intake
i do 5 days of strength training, no cardio yet, but i will when i need to further calorie deficit in the last 4-6 weeks of my fatloss journey
i will record intensity of the chosen cardio and see how much calorie burn i did for that session with the intension of progressing depending on fortnightly weight result
food intake specifically carbs will be decreased progressively by 10-20 grams when plateau hits but for starters stay on the original calorie intake LBM x 14 calories.
CONSISTENTLY log all foods as close as possible to my macronutrients allowance for the day...
I GAVE MYSELF TIME...... 1 lb a week to lose so im giving myself 30 weeks to lose 30 lbs. yours might be a different timeframe GOODLUCK0 -
Also I'm not Hungary so I could struggle on putting extra calories into my diet, oh my god I never thought I would struggle understanding this like I am aarrgghh
It might help you to know that this isn't an uncommon complaint. We can't see your diary, so I don't know what you're eating now, but most dieters who have a hard time hitting their calorie goals have cut their fats back dramatically or are relying on diet substitutions for foods they love. Consider adding some calorie dense foods to your diet, like nuts, nut butters, olive oil, coconut oil, avocado, full fat dairy, Greek yogurt, ice cream, cheese, dark chocolate, etc.0 -
Yesterday was 8.8 miles and took just over 2 hours0
-
When walking I use endomondo to track my calories which is then transferred onto mfp and that is where I get my calories from could this be a true reading or over estimated how am I best recording what my calories usage is when exercising
I was using this app too and it really does overestimate.I walk for maybe 1 hour and 30 mins on the cross trainer and it was giving me on average 800-900 calories burnt.I bought a HRM,the polar4 and the same workout using that is saying about 520 so quite a difference really.
Just to add the walk is 5 miles normally.0 -
When walking I use endomondo to track my calories which is then transferred onto mfp and that is where I get my calories from could this be a true reading or over estimated how am I best recording what my calories usage is when exercising
How much exercise are you doing to burn 1480? That's a huge burn and I personally can only burn over 1000 if I run 10 miles!0 -
example on MFP overestimating,today I ran 5K my HRM said I burned 330 cal,MFP said something like 530 something..I went with my HRM..0
-
example on MFP overestimating,today I ran 5K my HRM said I burned 330 cal,MFP said something like 530 something..I went with my HRM..
It's different, therefore it's more accurate?
How do you know that MFP isn't more accurate because it's different than the HRM?
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is
Depending on how cheap your HRM is, and yes, Polar has cheap options, and how fit you are for your weight, it is very easily underestimating your calorie burns.
Polar assumes if you have a bad BMI for your age/gender, then your fitness level must be bad too. Which it thinks means a lower HR for given effort means less calorie burn.
Very incorrect and bad assumption.0 -
Yesterday was 8.8 miles and took just over 2 hours
So say 4.4 mph then, right at 2 hrs. 1 % incline.
Nice fast pace. If outside with incline, even better burn.
1478 calorie burn would be 240 lbs.
No need to confirm, but it does show that yes, that amount of burn for 2 hrs is entirely possible. But that includes what you would have burned at rest.
For how much you burned above and beyond, that would be NET burn.
1249
And yes, that is more accurate than HRM, because treadmill and walking is the most tested equipment with calorie burns used in research, and the formulas are highly accurate unless you have a peg leg or something to effect efficiency.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is
Now, if you don't weigh that much, then it over-estimated.
And if you really didn't do that distance, it's mis-calced too.
Is it using GPS? Than trustworthy.0 -
it was an example of the differences,,take it any way you want! I have already upped the HR zone on it because it was to low for me..I went with the lower one instead of doing the 50% of what MFP says. Again just an example! nothing more in that post.example on MFP overestimating,today I ran 5K my HRM said I burned 330 cal,MFP said something like 530 something..I went with my HRM..
It's different, therefore it's more accurate?
How do you know that MFP isn't more accurate because it's different than the HRM?
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is
Depending on how cheap your HRM is, and yes, Polar has cheap options, and how fit you are for your weight, it is very easily underestimating your calorie burns.
Polar assumes if you have a bad BMI for your age/gender, then your fitness level must be bad too. Which it thinks means a lower HR for given effort means less calorie burn.
Very incorrect and bad assumption.0 -
it was an example of the differences,,take it any way you want! I have already upped the HR zone on it because it was to low for me..I went with the lower one instead of doing the 50% of what MFP says. Again just an example! nothing more in that post.example on MFP overestimating,today I ran 5K my HRM said I burned 330 cal,MFP said something like 530 something..I went with my HRM..
It's different, therefore it's more accurate?
How do you know that MFP isn't more accurate because it's different than the HRM?
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is
Depending on how cheap your HRM is, and yes, Polar has cheap options, and how fit you are for your weight, it is very easily underestimating your calorie burns.
Polar assumes if you have a bad BMI for your age/gender, then your fitness level must be bad too. Which it thinks means a lower HR for given effort means less calorie burn.
Very incorrect and bad assumption.
Agreed!I would rather take the lower one than kid myself that I am burning more than I actually am.0 -
it was an example of the differences,,take it any way you want! I have already upped the HR zone on it because it was to low for me..I went with the lower one instead of doing the 50% of what MFP says. Again just an example! nothing more in that post.
It's different, therefore it's more accurate?
How do you know that MFP isn't more accurate because it's different than the HRM?
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is
Depending on how cheap your HRM is, and yes, Polar has cheap options, and how fit you are for your weight, it is very easily underestimating your calorie burns.
Polar assumes if you have a bad BMI for your age/gender, then your fitness level must be bad too. Which it thinks means a lower HR for given effort means less calorie burn.
Very incorrect and bad assumption.
Agreed!I would rather take the lower one than kid myself that I am burning more than I actually am.
But how in the world would you ever know how much you are actually burning, to even logically say you want to take the lower because you think the higher is burning more than you actually are.
Logically - that means you know exactly how much you are burning, to make that kind of statement.
Then why not just use that exact calorie burn then even the lower one.
I'm just trying to point out the illogical comments that always come along with comparison of HRM calorie estimates to MFP calories estimates - from people that have no clue where either one comes from, but are just sure the HRM is correct because it's different, and as you state, it's lower.
It's different and it's lower, therefore it's more accurate. Wow.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study0 -
Forgive me if this is silly, but I've only just joined here today.
I entered my exercise for today, cardio and weights training but I only received calorie credit for the cardio exercise - around 140 calories, My HRM had given me a total burn for the weights and cardio of 500 odd calories.
How come my weight training doesn't give me a calorie credit?
GG0 -
I never said it was 100% accurate,did I now?I was agreeing with the poster that wrote it was just that way for her,likewise it is just that way for me!
I would start the ap on my phone and it would give me 500 calories burnt in an hour,then it would upload on MFP and be maybe another 200 added on to it.Nice figures but I didn't believe it so just changed it to what the phone said.
Now the HRM will give me maybe 320 and no I am not saying this is accurate either but I prefer to use this number as so many people recommend them on here.If I burn more then good but I prefer to have a figure rather than guessing.0 -
Forgive me if this is silly, but I've only just joined here today.
I entered my exercise for today, cardio and weights training but I only received calorie credit for the cardio exercise - around 140 calories, My HRM had given me a total burn for the weights and cardio of 500 odd calories.
How come my weight training doesn't give me a calorie credit?
GG
Enter the amounts and what you're doing yourself based on your HRM. There's an ADD EXERCISE feature there. GL!0 -
it was an example of the differences,,take it any way you want! I have already upped the HR zone on it because it was to low for me..I went with the lower one instead of doing the 50% of what MFP says. Again just an example! nothing more in that post.
It's different, therefore it's more accurate?
How do you know that MFP isn't more accurate because it's different than the HRM?
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/774337-how-to-test-hrm-for-how-accurate-calorie-burn-is
Depending on how cheap your HRM is, and yes, Polar has cheap options, and how fit you are for your weight, it is very easily underestimating your calorie burns.
Polar assumes if you have a bad BMI for your age/gender, then your fitness level must be bad too. Which it thinks means a lower HR for given effort means less calorie burn.
Very incorrect and bad assumption.
Agreed!I would rather take the lower one than kid myself that I am burning more than I actually am.
But how in the world would you ever know how much you are actually burning, to even logically say you want to take the lower because you think the higher is burning more than you actually are.
Logically - that means you know exactly how much you are burning, to make that kind of statement.
Then why not just use that exact calorie burn then even the lower one.
I'm just trying to point out the illogical comments that always come along with comparison of HRM calorie estimates to MFP calories estimates - from people that have no clue where either one comes from, but are just sure the HRM is correct because it's different, and as you state, it's lower.
It's different and it's lower, therefore it's more accurate. Wow.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study
Amazing link and info you posted on that link. But, wouldn't that make MFP, which estimates higher than a regular (aka Polar) HRM even more inaccurate? Because if Polar is .33% too high for females, or as you say in the thread, subtract 12% from your HRM amts, and err on the lower rather than higher end? BTW fascinating!!!0 -
I'm really struggling understanding the calories I use whilst exercising, my daily cal is 1410 and today with walking and swimming I've burned 1480 calories do I need to eat those additional calories as well as my 1410 to lose weight I've lost 10 lbs in 4 weeks it's just not coming off like I thought it would pls help
Alright, a few things that I'm going to address here.
1. You say you've lost 10 pounds in 4 weeks. This is more than the 2 pounds per week that's generally considered a healthy threshold for weight loss. It's not unusual to lose more than that at the beginning of a program, but the weight is coming off at the pace it should be. It sounds like you really don't need to accelerate it.
2. Yes, the program is designed for you to eat back your exercise calories. When MFP figures your calorie goal it doesn't take exercise into account, just the activity level you entered (most people choose sedentary). It creates a calorie goal with a safe deficit built in. When you exercise, you increase that deficit, possibly larger than your body can handle. The larger the deficit, the more risk there is for muscle loss, nutrient deficiencies, etc. That's why MFP adds the calories you burn back in to keep your deficit at a safe and steady level.
3. MFP and some other calculators have a tendency to overestimate your calories burned. If you're using MFP's estimates then it's often recommended to eat back about 50-75% of your burned calories, just to be safe.
This.
And this again. And again, and again, and again.
And again.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions