Fitness Nerds Attack!

squishycow7

okay, so I wrote up this whole big post... then the internet died and I lost it. I think it's a sign.


SO the gist of what I want to ask is:

if I use other methods rather than MFP of calculating my BMR and TDEE (and therefore my daily calories), should I still eat my exercise calories?


I ask because with any other online calculator and other equations, my deficit ALWAYS is several hundred higher than what MFP asks of me.

For example, MFP says for maintenance I should eat 1790 and .5lb/week loss 1540.
When I used equations from (the almighty) google search, I got a TDEE of about 2060 and with a 20% deficit my daily calories would be about 1645. I tried a few other methods of the same thing and got similar results to this one, some of them even higher.

THANK YOU for your patience (:


Edited because I made 4985743 typos. Roughly.

Meggles63

bump! Good question

erickirb

okay, so I wrote up this whole big post... then the internet died and I lost it. I think it's a sign.


SO the gist of what I want to ask is:

if I use other methods rather than MFP of calculating my BMR and TDEE (and therfore my daily calories), should I still eat my exercise calories?


I ask because with any other online calculator and other equations, my deficit ALWAYS is several hundred higher than what MFP asks of me.

For example, MFP says for maintenance I should eat 1790 and .5lb/week loss 1540.
When I used equations from (the almighty) google search, I got a TDEE of about 2060 and with a 20% deficit my daily calories would be about 1645. I tried a few other methods of the same thing and got similar results to this one, some of them even higher.

THANK YOU for your patience (:

Did you include the amount of exercise you do to get the TDEE on the other site?

Aslo the other site gave you a deficit of 412 vs. MFP's 250. so having said that if you go by the other site I would suggest setting a goal of a 10%-15% deficit (206-309) then not eat back the cals burned as it looks like it is included in the difference between 1790 and 2060.

So look at a typical week of your exercise and take your MFP goal of 1540 times 7 and add all your burned cals to that number, it should get you close to the other site (assuming the goals are comparable) which would be your 1645*7 (11,515 for the week) vs. 1540*7 (10,780 for the week+ what you burn) So if you burn 100 cals/week that would put you at 11,780 on MFP vs. 11,515 for the other site, not much of a difference. Now if you burn more than 1000 cals/week, you may want to change your goal to a 15% deficit vs. 20%

Maria_Goose

If weight loss is what you're looking at, I would just go with the lowest answer I got. However, I have found that MFP is quite reliable.

DisneySkaGirl

I'm doind New Rules of Lifting for Women, and I was given just over 1900 calories for maintenance based on age, height, and weight. For fat loss, that program advises a 300 calorie deficit (1600ish calories for me). That's without any exercise at all. I eat back a good majority of my exercise calories, because otherwise I feel hungry constantly. But, I am now using MFP more as a trakcer than listening to its reccommendations, it wanted me on 1200 and for a year, the scale and my waist did not change. I feel and look better now.

erickirb

I'm doind New Rules of Lifting for Women, and I was given just over 1900 calories for maintenance based on age, height, and weight. For fat loss, that program advises a 300 calorie deficit (1600ish calories for me). That's without any exercise at all. I eat back a good majority of my exercise calories, because otherwise I feel hungry constantly. But, I am now using MFP more as a trakcer than listening to its reccommendations, it wanted me on 1200 and for a year, the scale and my waist did not change. I feel and look better now.

That sounds like more of an issue with your weekly weight loss goal then with MFP. To see what MFP has as your maintenance go to goals and look at calories burned from normal daily activity.

squishycow7

Did you include the amount of exercise you do to get the TDEE on the other site?

there was an activity level multiplier, yes.

Aslo the other site gave you a deficit of 412 vs. MFP's 250. so having said that if you go by the other site I would suggest setting a goal of a 10%-15% deficit (206-309) then not eat back the cals burned as it looks like it is included in the difference between 1790 and 2060.

I guess more of a concern with this facet is that if my TDEE is actually closer to the 2060 mark rather than the 1790, MFP is giving me an even BIGGER deficit ...?

lizard053

Google search?

I have Jillian Michaels first book, she goes through the calculations in there too.

erickirb

Did you include the amount of exercise you do to get the TDEE on the other site?

there was an activity level multiplier, yes.

Aslo the other site gave you a deficit of 412 vs. MFP's 250. so having said that if you go by the other site I would suggest setting a goal of a 10%-15% deficit (206-309) then not eat back the cals burned as it looks like it is included in the difference between 1790 and 2060.

I guess more of a concern with this facet is that if my TDEE is actually closer to the 2060 mark rather than the 1790, MFP is giving me an even BIGGER deficit ...?

MFP ignores your exercise when assigning maintenance cals, which is why your exercise cals get added back in, but even if your TDEE ignoring exercise is that high your deficit would just be 105 cals more than the other site suggested and when you eat back the cals with MFP's intake your deficit would be smaller than using the 1645 and not eating cals back.

carrie_eggo

I'm doind New Rules of Lifting for Women, and I was given just over 1900 calories for maintenance based on age, height, and weight. For fat loss, that program advises a 300 calorie deficit (1600ish calories for me). That's without any exercise at all. I eat back a good majority of my exercise calories, because otherwise I feel hungry constantly. But, I am now using MFP more as a trakcer than listening to its reccommendations, it wanted me on 1200 and for a year, the scale and my waist did not change. I feel and look better now.

Hmm....I think NROLFW calorie recommendations are based on a moderately active (exercise factored in) activity level. If you are following those and only doing the workouts in the program, you should not be eating your exercise calories back. I do the NR program and calorie recommendations and I do not log my exercise unless it is above and beyond the workouts in the book.

ETA: I'm not knocking what you're doing.....if it's working well for your goals, then keep at it sister!!!