An objective look at eating "exercise calories"

12345679»

Replies

  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    julzwild wrote: »
    I'm so glad this was bumped. This post is fantastic. I've lost 20 in two months but the first month I extremely hung up on not eating exercise calories. I felt defeated if I didn't have numbers in the green by the end of the day. My weight loss completely accelerated the 2nd month when I gave that up and began eating them all back. Thanks for explaining this so well!

    You're welcome. Glad to hear you're on the right path now.
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    CallMeCupcakeDammit wrote: »
    stroutman81 wrote: »
    Thanks for bumping. :)

    I'm trying to find the threads that used to be in "My Topics". I know I had several of yours in there. :)

    There were some big ones awhile back. Here are a few of them:

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/172515

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/574892

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/545631

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/276660

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/439140

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/475726

    There were a lot more but these are what I found with a quick search.
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    _whatsherface wrote: »
    Well said. MFP puts me calories at 1810 to lose 1.5 a week. I almost always eat my exercise calories back or at least whatever I feel I need too. Most work outs I burn 400-500 in 60 mins putting me at 2350 calories for the day. I'll probably still eat the 1810 or I might go to 2000 just depends.

    Yeah, to this day I still don't have my clients track energy expenditure. I mean, I make a guess at what their TDEE is per day... but it's just a guess. Exercise doesn't vary much throughout the week and the minor deviations in other activity expenditure aren't wide enough to really worry about to excruciating levels of details.

    So I set my deficit based on this estimated TDEE and track.

    If they're consistent yet weight stable, I know their TDEE is lower than predicted for whatever reason, so I'll adjust the calorie target downward.

    More often than not, though, it's not so much a calorie issue as it is a consistency/accuracy issue.
  • CallMeCupcakeDammit
    CallMeCupcakeDammit Posts: 9,377 Member
    stroutman81 wrote: »
    CallMeCupcakeDammit wrote: »
    stroutman81 wrote: »
    Thanks for bumping. :)

    I'm trying to find the threads that used to be in "My Topics". I know I had several of yours in there. :)

    There were some big ones awhile back. Here are a few of them:

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/172515

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/574892

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/545631

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/276660

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/439140

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/475726

    There were a lot more but these are what I found with a quick search.

    Thanks!
  • arizonahiker
    arizonahiker Posts: 40 Member
    Very helpful post, this really helped me gain a better understanding. Would anyone be able to answer a silly question (just a little confused) are the calories set by MFP the recommended deficit. Meaning as long as I am eating at or slightly below the calorie suggestion then I should lose weight correct? leaving out exercise calories and eating them back etc...
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    arizonahiker wrote: »
    Very helpful post, this really helped me gain a better understanding. Would anyone be able to answer a silly question (just a little confused) are the calories set by MFP the recommended deficit. Meaning as long as I am eating at or slightly below the calorie suggestion then I should lose weight correct? leaving out exercise calories and eating them back etc...

    I'll be honest... I don't use MFP for calorie prescriptions. From what I understand... yes... the amount they tell you to eat includes a deficit. Which is why, if you add exercise, you're supposed to track the calories expended and eat them back. Otherwise you run the risk of creating a deficit that's too large.

    Or at least that's along the lines of how it goes.

    But just to be clear... whatever they tell you to eat doesn't guarantee weight loss. Picking a starting calorie target, either on your own or with the use of a tool like MFP, is just the start of an ongoing process. You use it as a test and it either works for you or it doesn't. When it doesn't... you simply adjust until you get things dialed in for your personal set of circumstances.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Also, if your MFP intake goal hits the 1200 floor, the "you have to eat back" logic doesn't really apply. If you hit 1200, you're not achieving the deficit you're aiming for. You can achieve it through exercise. Though not if you believe in "you always have to eat back 100%".
  • arizonahiker
    arizonahiker Posts: 40 Member
    Thank you both :)
  • thielke2015
    thielke2015 Posts: 212 Member
    I love this post and wish I had found it earlier.
    I am a newbie but I am now educating myself as to how weight loss works. This is the most positive mindset I have encountered because I can do the math and then I know whether I should expect to be seeing a loss or not. This really prepares me mentally and I say, ok so this week I shouldn't expect to see a loss so don't freak out when I weigh. It puts me in a more positive headplace.

    I am eating 1560 per day..... on days I don't exercise I eat that or about 100 below. On the days I do exercise and burn between 200-300 I might eat back say 100. A few days ago I did a 7.5 mile walk and burned 860 calories. Now I didn't eat any of those back because I had 800 calories out of my 1560 left so we cooked a homemade meal in the evening which took those 800 calories. This week I am on target to lose 2lbs and the scales agree
  • stroutman81
    stroutman81 Posts: 2,474 Member
    thielke2015 wrote: »
    I love this post and wish I had found it earlier.
    I am a newbie but I am now educating myself as to how weight loss works. This is the most positive mindset I have encountered because I can do the math and then I know whether I should expect to be seeing a loss or not. This really prepares me mentally and I say, ok so this week I shouldn't expect to see a loss so don't freak out when I weigh. It puts me in a more positive headplace.

    I am eating 1560 per day..... on days I don't exercise I eat that or about 100 below. On the days I do exercise and burn between 200-300 I might eat back say 100. A few days ago I did a 7.5 mile walk and burned 860 calories. Now I didn't eat any of those back because I had 800 calories out of my 1560 left so we cooked a homemade meal in the evening which took those 800 calories. This week I am on target to lose 2lbs and the scales agree

    Glad you found it useful! Thanks for bumping it.
  • seekingdaintiness
    seekingdaintiness Posts: 137 Member
    The trouble I see with the "eat back exercise calories" logic: I see people logging things like "walked to store for 15 minutes" "picked up toys for 10 minutes" or even "had sex for 20 minutes" as exercise to have an excuse to eat more :))
    Yeah eat a little more if you ran 5 miles
    Not for day to day life stuff
  • Rincewind_1965
    Rincewind_1965 Posts: 639 Member
    edited May 2017
    seekingdaintiness wrote: »
    The trouble I see with the "eat back exercise calories" logic: I see people logging things like "walked to store for 15 minutes" "picked up toys for 10 minutes" or even "had sex for 20 minutes" as exercise to have an excuse to eat more :))

    In fact that is not a problem of the principle but of the people perverting it.
    If they cannot find any activity even remotely to be subsumed as "exercise" they'd claim the occasional cheat-day.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    seekingdaintiness wrote: »
    The trouble I see with the "eat back exercise calories" logic: I see people logging things like "walked to store for 15 minutes" "picked up toys for 10 minutes" or even "had sex for 20 minutes" as exercise to have an excuse to eat more :))
    Yeah eat a little more if you ran 5 miles
    Not for day to day life stuff

    But my "day to day life stuff" also uses energy. My body isn't doing that stuff "for free." Why wouldn't I want my calorie intake to be related to the actual energy I'm using in daily life?
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    seekingdaintiness wrote: »
    The trouble I see with the "eat back exercise calories" logic: I see people logging things like "walked to store for 15 minutes" "picked up toys for 10 minutes" or even "had sex for 20 minutes" as exercise to have an excuse to eat more :))
    Yeah eat a little more if you ran 5 miles
    Not for day to day life stuff

    You seem confused. Do you think walking for 15 minutes runs on magic instead of calories?
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    seekingdaintiness wrote: »
    The trouble I see with the "eat back exercise calories" logic: I see people logging things like "walked to store for 15 minutes" "picked up toys for 10 minutes" or even "had sex for 20 minutes" as exercise to have an excuse to eat more :))
    Yeah eat a little more if you ran 5 miles
    Not for day to day life stuff

    In essence, I do this. I set my activity level to the lowest possible and use a HRM to estimate my burn above and beyond that. So if my Garmin sends through 200 calories for whatever I did in the day outside of exercise, I have 200 calories over the sedentary level to eat. When I wasn't eating them, I was losing more than 2 lbs per week.
    I don't log the individual activities, but if I didn't have my watch, I should. I'm between sedentary and lightly active most days.
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    seekingdaintiness wrote: »
    The trouble I see with the "eat back exercise calories" logic: I see people logging things like "walked to store for 15 minutes" "picked up toys for 10 minutes" or even "had sex for 20 minutes" as exercise to have an excuse to eat more :))
    Yeah eat a little more if you ran 5 miles
    Not for day to day life stuff

    You seem confused. Do you think walking for 15 minutes runs on magic instead of calories?

    If you make it a mile, walking, in 15 minutes you've burned about 60 calories. It's within the margin of error of intake measurement.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    edited May 2017
    @heiliskrimsli How many calories you burn walking a mile (or any other distance) depends on your weight and the amount of elevation you gain. Sometimes it'll be 60 calories, but most times it'll be a different number. And there's really nothing special about a mile or 15 minutes or 60 calories.
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    @heiliskrimsli How many calories you burn walking a mile (or any other distance) depends on your weight and the amount of elevation you gain. Sometimes it'll be 60 calories, but most times it'll be a different number. And there's really nothing special about a mile or 15 minutes or 60 calories.

    Distance and speed both matter. If you walk 15 minutes and make it half a mile, you're not really doing much for yourself in terms of exercise. Someone who's walking along at 2 mph is not burning very many calories in 15 minutes.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    "Exercise" is a word that has many meanings, and walking can qualify under some meanings but not others. For example, it's an objective fact under the laws of physics that walking for 15 minutes (or any other amount of time) uses energy which is the same thing as burning calories. It won't raise your FTP though.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    heiliskrimsli wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    seekingdaintiness wrote: »
    The trouble I see with the "eat back exercise calories" logic: I see people logging things like "walked to store for 15 minutes" "picked up toys for 10 minutes" or even "had sex for 20 minutes" as exercise to have an excuse to eat more :))
    Yeah eat a little more if you ran 5 miles
    Not for day to day life stuff

    You seem confused. Do you think walking for 15 minutes runs on magic instead of calories?

    If you make it a mile, walking, in 15 minutes you've burned about 60 calories. It's within the margin of error of intake measurement.

    I get almost double that, so presumably I'm a lot heavier and/or taller than you are.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    heiliskrimsli wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    @heiliskrimsli How many calories you burn walking a mile (or any other distance) depends on your weight and the amount of elevation you gain. Sometimes it'll be 60 calories, but most times it'll be a different number. And there's really nothing special about a mile or 15 minutes or 60 calories.

    Distance and speed both matter. If you walk 15 minutes and make it half a mile, you're not really doing much for yourself in terms of exercise. Someone who's walking along at 2 mph is not burning very many calories in 15 minutes.

    Right, that's why I use the MFP database entries that include MPH.

    I told my cardiologist my normal pace is 3 MPH, and he was quite impressed, which I found odd, as I don't think that is fast at all, but perhaps he mostly deals with unfit patients.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories