Does MFP account for this?

Xenocat

I don't really know how to explain it, so Ill just toss out the article... give it a quick read. Does MFP account for it?

http://caloriecount.about.com/eating-back-exercise-calories-ft35823

infosynth

Short answer: Yes.

When you created your profile, you had to specify a general activity level. Even "sedentary" is above the BMR (basal metabolic rate, needed just to keep you alive) and some calories (based on a multiplier, usually) will be added to the intake recommended by MFP.

So, as in the article you provided, if you choose a sedentary activity instead of exercising, it's already accounted for in your calories. You would log activities that exceed the level of your regular, daily activity.

On the other hand, however, if you selected "very active" or similar and are actually sedentary, the recommended intake will be too high for your actual activity level. It works both ways.

HTH.

azlady7

yes they do

ckintigh

In a word, NO! I just try to eat the calories I'm allowed each day, and ignore the calories I burned during exercise. Otherwise, it would be easy to try to trick yourself into justifying eating too many calories. I have a Polar Heart Rate Monitor, and found out that just doing everyday activities like washing dishes, folding laundry, etc. burns 125 calories an hour. I burned 300 calories yesterday on a long walk, and MFP said I had 300 "extra" calories available to eat. SO NOT TRUE! It would really be 175 calories. So I just try to stay in the range of the 1250 calories allowed each day whether I exercise or not (though I am not saying exercise is not important....it IS and so I do it every day!!!) Hope this helps!

Crystal_Rudolph

Many will disagree with the article and me though.

In order to lose weight, you need to burn more calories then you take in. It is as simple as that. So, no I do not try to eat back my exercise calories. Why? Because, in my opinion...what was the point in working out, if you just eat it all back. So I take my BMR plus my burned calories minus my intake calories and I have a deficit around 800. This is my goal at least. Sometimes I fail, sometimes I succeed.

harmonydubois

Wow...never looked at it like that, and honestly, I don't think that MFP takes that in account

taso42_DELETED

Yes. MFP adds back the exercise calories and the system is designed such that you would eat them. It's a hotly debated topic around here because many people either don't get it, don't believe in it, or are "scared to eat". For example, a few of the people who responded already.

"what was the point in working out, if you just eat it all back." - the point of working out is to get physically fit, stronger, and to build or maintain muscle. In order for these things to happen, you need to be properly fueled. If you are not, you will be losing muscle, feel fatigued, decrease your metabolism, and generally speaking you'd be wasting your workout.

I, and most of us here work too damn hard to let it go to waste.

Fuel up! Be lean, fit and strong. Don't be skinny, weak, tired, and hungry!

LarryPGH

In a word, NO! I just try to eat the calories I'm allowed each day, and ignore the calories I burned during exercise. Otherwise, it would be easy to try to trick yourself into justifying eating too many calories. I have a Polar Heart Rate Monitor, and found out that just doing everyday activities like washing dishes, folding laundry, etc. burns 125 calories an hour. I burned 300 calories yesterday on a long walk, and MFP said I had 300 "extra" calories available to eat. SO NOT TRUE! It would really be 175 calories. So I just try to stay in the range of the 1250 calories allowed each day whether I exercise or not (though I am not saying exercise is not important....it IS and so I do it every day!!!) Hope this helps!

I haven't taken the time to respond to this meme in a while, so I'll take my turn again...

NO -- what you write is part of the story, but isn't 100% correct. You say that a 300 calorie walk isn't "worth" 300 calories, but instead, only 125 (since, I'm assuming, you're saying that your daily activity washing dishes, etc comes to the difference -- 175 calories). This isn't correct, and isn't what MFP is doing in its calculations!

When you signed up, you entered an activity category (sedentary, light, etc, etc). That category covers your daily activities -- the 175 calories in your example -- but doesn't cover any exercise that you do, over and above normal daily activity! Therefore, the calorie number that you see as your goal *already* *has* *those* *calories* factored in! So, when you take a walk and expend 300 calories, it's in addition to what you're already doing in order to have a deficit! Therefore, go ahead and eat back (some or all of) your exercise calories, so that you maintain the deficit you planned for.

ETA: Just to say it explicitly: yes, MFP takes into account the activity level that the OP's article talks about. So you don't have to worry about it, or about adjusting any of your calories, or worry about activity multipliers. It's already in there....!

Crystal_Rudolph

Yes. MFP adds back the exercise calories and the system is designed such that you would eat them. It's a hotly debated topic around here because many people either don't get it, don't believe in it, or are "scared to eat". For example, a few of the people who responded already.

"what was the point in working out, if you just eat it all back." - the point of working out is to get physically fit, stronger, and to build or maintain muscle. In order for these things to happen, you need to be properly fueled. If you are not, you will be losing muscle, feel fatigued, decrease your metabolism, and generally speaking you'd be wasting your workout.

I, and most of us here work too damn hard to let it go to waste.

Fuel up! Be lean, fit and strong. Don't be skinny, weak, tired, and hungry!

So are you saying that I am not getting physically fit because I don't eat back my exercise calories? I have lost several inches and pounds, have more energy, can flex my biceps now, am no longer out of breath when I go on a bike ride or even a walk. So how am I not starting to get physically fit? My workouts consist of a balance of strength training and cardio. So I am toning muscle and burning fat to the best of my ability right now.

All I said that it was my opinion and it works for me! I did not say that it works for you or anyone else.

taso42_DELETED

So are you saying that I am not getting physically fit because I don't eat back my exercise calories? I have lost several inches and pounds, have more energy, can flex my biceps now, am no longer out of breath when I go on a bike ride or even a walk. So how am I not starting to get physically fit? My workouts consist of a balance of strength training and cardio. So I am toning muscle and burning fat to the best of my ability right now.

All I said that it was my opinion and it works for me! I did not say that it works for you or anyone else.

It works for a while, especially for those that have 50 or more lbs to lose. But in the long term, eating below your BMR will harm you. That's why a few stubborn *kitten* like me never give up and keep responding to these threads.

Here's an example of an often cited thread
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing

LarryPGH

So are you saying that I am not getting physically fit because I don't eat back my exercise calories? I have lost several inches and pounds, have more energy, can flex my biceps now, am no longer out of breath when I go on a bike ride or even a walk. So how am I not starting to get physically fit? My workouts consist of a balance of strength training and cardio. So I am toning muscle and burning fat to the best of my ability right now.

It's working for you right now, at your particular stage of weight loss, and given your physical condition. That doesn't mean that it will hold long-term. At the beginning of a weight-loss program, most folks are waaaay out of shape -- so any exercise they do *will* cause them to be more fit. Similarly, when a person is obese, they can safely lose more weight per week than when they're in the "overweight" BMI range, or near the "ideal" range. That doesn't mean that it's sustainable though.

Are you getting more fit than you were before starting? Absolutely. Are you as healthy as you could be, at this point, if you were trying to stay with your projected weekly weight loss numbers? Probably not -- you're probably losing muscle mass at a rate that would surprise you.

damonmath

When you set a goal to lose 1-2 pounds per week on MFP, the system gives you a target number per day.... Let's say it's 1250 calories per day.

These are your base calories. A typical person on an average day would burn more than this. Since you would be consuming less than your average, you will lose weight based on calories In<Calories Out.

Now the 1250 that MFP gives you are BASE calories... This is what you need to sustain good organ health (yes your organs also need FOOD). As soon as you raise your Heart Rate and begin to burn calories, your body dips below the 1250. This will begin to affect your organs as now they are competing against your muscles for your limited supply of calories (1250). If this hunger is not met, your body will begin to burn muscle to make up the difference.

How you prevent your body from going into this state is by eating back your calories... You are NOT over eating, you are replenishing the spent 1250 that your organs need.

Please... For your own health eat back your calories... Your heart, lungs, and brain need food too.

l3xii

Yes. MFP adds back the exercise calories and the system is designed such that you would eat them. It's a hotly debated topic around here because many people either don't get it, don't believe in it, or are "scared to eat". For example, a few of the people who responded already.

"what was the point in working out, if you just eat it all back." - the point of working out is to get physically fit, stronger, and to build or maintain muscle. In order for these things to happen, you need to be properly fueled. If you are not, you will be losing muscle, feel fatigued, decrease your metabolism, and generally speaking you'd be wasting your workout.

I, and most of us here work too damn hard to let it go to waste.

Fuel up! Be lean, fit and strong. Don't be skinny, weak, tired, and hungry!

EXACTLY RIGHT..... SO TRUE

l3xii

Yes. MFP adds back the exercise calories and the system is designed such that you would eat them. It's a hotly debated topic around here because many people either don't get it, don't believe in it, or are "scared to eat". For example, a few of the people who responded already.

"what was the point in working out, if you just eat it all back." - the point of working out is to get physically fit, stronger, and to build or maintain muscle. In order for these things to happen, you need to be properly fueled. If you are not, you will be losing muscle, feel fatigued, decrease your metabolism, and generally speaking you'd be wasting your workout.

I, and most of us here work too damn hard to let it go to waste.

Fuel up! Be lean, fit and strong. Don't be skinny, weak, tired, and hungry!

So are you saying that I am not getting physically fit because I don't eat back my exercise calories? I have lost several inches and pounds, have more energy, can flex my biceps now, am no longer out of breath when I go on a bike ride or even a walk. So how am I not starting to get physically fit? My workouts consist of a balance of strength training and cardio. So I am toning muscle and burning fat to the best of my ability right now.

All I said that it was my opinion and it works for me! I did not say that it works for you or anyone else.

NO WHAT I THINK HE IS SAYING IS THAT YOU HAVE TO REFUEL YOUR BODY OR YOU WILL LOSE YOU MUSCLE MASS. TO MAKE IT CLEAR YOU WILL HAVE MORE MUSCLE IF YOU EAT THEM BACK!

Atlantique

When you set a goal to lose 1-2 pounds per week on MFP, the system gives you a target number per day.... Let's say it's 1250 calories per day.

These are your base calories. A typical person on an average day would burn more than this. Since you would be consuming less than your average, you will lose weight based on calories In<Calories Out.

Now the 1250 that MFP gives you are BASE calories... This is what you need to sustain good organ health (yes your organs also need FOOD). As soon as you raise your Heart Rate and begin to burn calories, your body dips below the 1250. This will begin to affect your organs as now they are competing against your muscles for your limited supply of calories (1250). If this hunger is not met, your body will begin to burn muscle to make up the difference.

How you prevent your body from going into this state is by eating back your calories... You are NOT over eating, you are replenishing the spent 1250 that your organs need.

Please... For your own health eat back your calories... Your heart, lungs, and brain need food too.

Not quite right, but close. Take a look at your goals page and compare it with your BMR and you'll see what I mean.

MFP calculates your daily calorie goal for 1 lb per week loss this way:

(BMR calories + Activity Level calories) - 500 calories = Your Daily Calorie Goal

On days that you log exercise, it looks like this:

(BMR calories + Activity Level calories + Exercise Calories) - 500 calories = Your Daily Calorie Goal

LovelySnugs

From the Article: "Let's consider what a standard calorie counter would have done. First, it will assume an average calorie burn rate of 1 calorie per minute. Then the counter will find that exercising for 30 minutes will yield 30 (minutes) * 6 (MET) * 1 (calories per minute) = 180 calories. The calorie counter will add these 180 calories to your daily expenditure without considering that a part of these 180 calories is already accounted by your usual activities.

Do you now see the difference between 113 calories and 180 calories? If that woman spends 5 hours a week in that aerobics class, the standard calorie counters will overreport her calorie output by: (180-113) * 10 = 670 calories a week. The woman will be fooled that her metabolic rate has dropped while she just overestimated her calorie expenditure."

this, however, does NOT justify refusing to eat back your exercise calories. it only means that you need to be careful with your numbers. i, personally, log all my exercise and eat back some or most of the calories (well, i was until i fell off the wagon last week. but i'm back to it now.). but i know that a lot of people subtract their BMR calories before they log their exercise in order to be more concise. but look at the numbers: for a 1lb loss, MFP calculates a 3500 calorie a week deficit. in the example, the aerobics woman is eating an extra 670 calories a week. 3500-670 still equals a 2,830 calorie deficit per week - so there should still be a loss. if it's that big a deal to you, just subtract your average BMR from your exercise calories when you log, and then you won't have this problem and a ton of people who think they know what's what (LOL myself included :blushing: :flowerforyou:) trying to tell you what to do.

PoleBoy

If you enter your own calories burnt in exercise, you have to enter your extra calories, as outlined in the article.

Crystal_Rudolph

So are you saying that I am not getting physically fit because I don't eat back my exercise calories? I have lost several inches and pounds, have more energy, can flex my biceps now, am no longer out of breath when I go on a bike ride or even a walk. So how am I not starting to get physically fit? My workouts consist of a balance of strength training and cardio. So I am toning muscle and burning fat to the best of my ability right now.

It's working for you right now, at your particular stage of weight loss, and given your physical condition. That doesn't mean that it will hold long-term. At the beginning of a weight-loss program, most folks are waaaay out of shape -- so any exercise they do *will* cause them to be more fit. Similarly, when a person is obese, they can safely lose more weight per week than when they're in the "overweight" BMI range, or near the "ideal" range. That doesn't mean that it's sustainable though.

Are you getting more fit than you were before starting? Absolutely. Are you as healthy as you could be, at this point, if you were trying to stay with your projected weekly weight loss numbers? Probably not -- you're probably losing muscle mass at a rate that would surprise you.

Thank you! My point and I believe that I stated it was that "it works for me now". Does that mean I might change my mind later? Probably.

damonmath

When you set a goal to lose 1-2 pounds per week on MFP, the system gives you a target number per day.... Let's say it's 1250 calories per day.

These are your base calories. A typical person on an average day would burn more than this. Since you would be consuming less than your average, you will lose weight based on calories In<Calories Out.

Now the 1250 that MFP gives you are BASE calories... This is what you need to sustain good organ health (yes your organs also need FOOD). As soon as you raise your Heart Rate and begin to burn calories, your body dips below the 1250. This will begin to affect your organs as now they are competing against your muscles for your limited supply of calories (1250). If this hunger is not met, your body will begin to burn muscle to make up the difference.

How you prevent your body from going into this state is by eating back your calories... You are NOT over eating, you are replenishing the spent 1250 that your organs need.

Please... For your own health eat back your calories... Your heart, lungs, and brain need food too.

Not quite right, but close. Take a look at your goals page and compare it with your BMR and you'll see what I mean.

MFP calculates your daily calorie goal for 1 lb per week loss this way:

(BMR calories + Activity Level calories) - 500 calories = Your Daily Calorie Goal

On days that you log exercise, it looks like this:

(BMR calories + Activity Level calories + Exercise Calories) - 500 calories = Your Daily Calorie Goal

Right! I was trying to keep it simple and just say base.

I do realize that at rest you can potentially burn 120 calories an hour... So if your HRM or MFP says an exercise is 300 calories/hour, should you subtract the 120 from it? I say it depends on what you did. If you ran a 5k, your body will most likely continue to burn for a good 20-30 minutes after you have stopped... So there is a grey area there.. IMO.

Crystal_Rudolph

So are you saying that I am not getting physically fit because I don't eat back my exercise calories? I have lost several inches and pounds, have more energy, can flex my biceps now, am no longer out of breath when I go on a bike ride or even a walk. So how am I not starting to get physically fit? My workouts consist of a balance of strength training and cardio. So I am toning muscle and burning fat to the best of my ability right now.

It's working for you right now, at your particular stage of weight loss, and given your physical condition. That doesn't mean that it will hold long-term. At the beginning of a weight-loss program, most folks are waaaay out of shape -- so any exercise they do *will* cause them to be more fit. Similarly, when a person is obese, they can safely lose more weight per week than when they're in the "overweight" BMI range, or near the "ideal" range. That doesn't mean that it's sustainable though.

Are you getting more fit than you were before starting? Absolutely. Are you as healthy as you could be, at this point, if you were trying to stay with your projected weekly weight loss numbers? Probably not -- you're probably losing muscle mass at a rate that would surprise you.

Thank you! My point and I believe that I stated it was that "it works for me now". Does that mean I might change my mind later? Probably.

And actually, I am gaining more muscle mass right now. I had that checked at the doctors just the other day! So it is working for me right now. But that does not mean I suggest to do it my way to anyone else, nor does it mean that I will continue to only eat the 1200 cal forever.

funkyspunky871

In a word, NO! I just try to eat the calories I'm allowed each day, and ignore the calories I burned during exercise. Otherwise, it would be easy to try to trick yourself into justifying eating too many calories. I have a Polar Heart Rate Monitor, and found out that just doing everyday activities like washing dishes, folding laundry, etc. burns 125 calories an hour. I burned 300 calories yesterday on a long walk, and MFP said I had 300 "extra" calories available to eat. SO NOT TRUE! It would really be 175 calories. So I just try to stay in the range of the 1250 calories allowed each day whether I exercise or not (though I am not saying exercise is not important....it IS and so I do it every day!!!) Hope this helps!

I haven't taken the time to respond to this meme in a while, so I'll take my turn again...

NO -- what you write is part of the story, but isn't 100% correct. You say that a 300 calorie walk isn't "worth" 300 calories, but instead, only 125 (since, I'm assuming, you're saying that your daily activity washing dishes, etc comes to the difference -- 175 calories). This isn't correct, and isn't what MFP is doing in its calculations!

When you signed up, you entered an activity category (sedentary, light, etc, etc). That category covers your daily activities -- the 175 calories in your example -- but doesn't cover any exercise that you do, over and above normal daily activity! Therefore, the calorie number that you see as your goal *already* *has* *those* *calories* factored in! So, when you take a walk and expend 300 calories, it's in addition to what you're already doing in order to have a deficit! Therefore, go ahead and eat back (some or all of) your exercise calories, so that you maintain the deficit you planned for.

ETA: Just to say it explicitly: yes, MFP takes into account the activity level that the OP's article talks about. So you don't have to worry about it, or about adjusting any of your calories, or worry about activity multipliers. It's already in there....!

A perfect explanation. Thank you. I almost went to the trouble of explaining it myself.