Why Eating Exercise Calories is so important.

imagineyes

This doesn't make any sense to me. If you want to lose weight, you have to burn more calories than you consume. That is the only way to do it. So eating back what you burn will not give the weight loss results that most dieters are looking to achieve. I have consulted with my primary care doctor and a registered dietician, and they both explained that in order to lose weight, you must burn more than you eat, and you need to burn 3500 per week just to lose 1 pound.

:flowerforyou: To each their own, but I will continue to focus on burning more than I consume, and listen to the medical advice that has been provided to me.


Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

Lets say you want to loose 1kg a week, that means cutting back 1000 kcal a day. So if it was me it would mean I just end up at 1200 kcal a day without workout to loose 1kg a week.

So lets say one day I decide to workout and burn 500 calories, but I still only eat 1200 kcal. That means that my total net for that day would only be: 700 kcal. Which is to little.

So lets day I eat the 500 kcal. That would mean I end up at 1700 kcal, but because I workout for 500 kcal it would mean that I am still actually at 1200 kcal that day.

Like it says here on the site under help "What that means is that if you exercise, you will be able to eat more for that day. For example, if your Net Calorie goal is 2000 calories, one way to meet that goal is to eat 2,500 calories of food, but then burn 500 calories through exercise.

Think of your Net Calories like a daily budget of calories to spend. You spend them by eating, and you earn more calories to eat by exercising."

JNick77

This doesn't make any sense to me. If you want to lose weight, you have to burn more calories than you consume. That is the only way to do it. So eating back what you burn will not give the weight loss results that most dieters are looking to achieve. I have consulted with my primary care doctor and a registered dietician, and they both explained that in order to lose weight, you must burn more than you eat, and you need to burn 3500 per week just to lose 1 pound.

:flowerforyou: To each their own, but I will continue to focus on burning more than I consume, and listen to the medical advice that has been provided to me.


Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

I agree, doesn't make sense. One thing that nobody has been able to explain is what happens beyond the initial "burn". Assuming the HRM is accurate, which they're not there's definitely a swag, your body continues to burn calories at an increased rate for hours after you exercise. Nobody seems to account for that, so if accounting for that isn't important why is accounting for the initial burn so important?

mantisnd

Wow...this is interesting...so now I have a Question.

I tend to exercise late. Don't really want to eat late. Is it also important to eat those calories back that day? What about early the next day, maybe 10 to 12 hours after the exercise??? Any thoughts?

If you are working out you NEED to have some protein to recover. Even if it is a protein shake. A large glass of chocolate milk will work as well. As the other poster said I would just incorporate them into your daily intake but then you really have to work out.

sanchezmelissa

I often hear people asking why eating your exercise calories is a good thing?
These people think 'That's extra calories burned, so that will speed up my weight loss.'
Well, yes and no.

The thing is, your body needs fuel.
Your metabolism, typically around between 1200 and 1800 calories, are the calories that your body will burn, during the day, every day. Even if you sat around on the sofa, or slept, or were in a coma. You would need this to allow natural processes like hair/nail growth, skin replenishment, organ function, etc to continue.
That's why it's very dangerous to eat anything under 1200 calories!

So, lets take the average 1500 calorie metabolism.
- If you live a sedentary lifestyle (desk job or no exercise), you would probably only burn 300 - 500 calories in a day by moving around. So you need 1800 - 2000 calories to maintain.
A significant amount of the population leads a sedentary lifestyle, so most doctors recommend 2000 calories a day is good.
- If you live a lightly active lifestyle (job involving some walking or some exercise (1/2 days) then you'd burn around 500 - 700 by moving around. So you need 2000 - 2200 to maintain.
- If you are quite active (some manual labour or exercise 3 - 5 days/week) then that's probably 700 - 900. Thus, you need 2200 - 2400 calories to maintain.
- And if you are very active (manual job or exercise 6 - 7 days/week) then you're burning around 1000. So, you need about 2500 calories to maintain.

This is your Total Daily Energy Expenditure (or TDEE)

MFP will set your deficit at what you want 0.5/1/1.5/2 lbs/week or -250/-500/-750/-1000 calories below your TDEE.

Simples, right?

Well, ish. Let's take an average scenario:

--

Meet Jane. She weighs 200lbs, and wants to lose 50lbs.
Jane has a metabolism of 1500. She leads a sedentary lifestyle, so she burns about 2000 calories per day.
Jane wants to lose 1lbs/week

MFP calculates Jane's calorie intake and deducts 500 calories. She will require 1500 calories to lose 1lbs/week.

But Jane decides she will start running.
Jane burns 400 calories when she runs for 30 minutes.
She does not eat back those 400 calories.

Jane is now NETTING 1100 calories.

*NET = Calories Consumed - Calories Burned from Exercise
You're NET should equal your CALORIE GOAL to achieve weightloss.

Because of the extra activity, 400/1500 of the calories consumed have been burnt by Jane. That means the body must function on only 1100 calories per day to allow natural processes like hair/nail growth, skin replenishment, organ function to continue.

THUS, Jane's metabolism drops* to meet her NET calories (1100).
NB* This may take several weeks and will not respond to occasionally high deficits.
Over the same period of time, Jane's body will respond to the huge caloric defecit and try to preserve the body, by burning Jane's muscle rather than her fat. The number on the scale drops, but Jane does not seem to get any skinnier.

Now she burns 1600 calories on sedentary days, and 2000 calories on exercise days.

When Jane has lost 50lbs and returns to normal eating, she can only eat 1600 calories on sedentary days or she will gain weight again.

HOWEVER. If Jane decides to eat back the 400 calories:

She continues to lose 1lbs/week
Her metabolism will increase because (a) she is exercising (which increases the metabolism) and (b) because she is eating 1900 calories (the more calories she eats, the more her metabolism is raised.)
However, her NET calories remain at 1500, so she achieves ideal weightloss.
When Jane reaches her goal of 150lbs, her metabolism will be faster so she is able to eat more than 2000 calories to maintain her weight.

--

Do you see? But eating back her exercise calories, Jane is able to continue her weightloss without damaging her metabolism for the future.

Exercising and then eating back your calories is just about the best thing you could do for your weightloss. It raises your metabolism, allows you to eat more, and helps to tone/build muscle rather than burn it so you don't get that flabby look of loose skin.

I really hope this helps someone.

ironanimal

This doesn't make any sense to me. If you want to lose weight, you have to burn more calories than you consume. That is the only way to do it. So eating back what you burn will not give the weight loss results that most dieters are looking to achieve. I have consulted with my primary care doctor and a registered dietician, and they both explained that in order to lose weight, you must burn more than you eat, and you need to burn 3500 per week just to lose 1 pound.

:flowerforyou: To each their own, but I will continue to focus on burning more than I consume, and listen to the medical advice that has been provided to me.


Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

I agree, doesn't make sense. One thing that nobody has been able to explain is what happens beyond the initial "burn". Assuming the HRM is accurate, which they're not there's definitely a swag, your body continues to burn calories at an increased rate for hours after you exercise. Nobody seems to account for that, so if accounting for that isn't important why is accounting for the initial burn so important?

Oh god. It really is simple.

Your calorie goal includes your deficit to achieve the weightloss you want. If you exercise, you increase the deficit. If you eat back to your calorie goal after exercise, the deficit is still there!

Beyond calories, your body needs the correct nutrition following exercise to repair and build. It's really, really, really not hard.

JNick77

This doesn't make any sense to me. If you want to lose weight, you have to burn more calories than you consume. That is the only way to do it. So eating back what you burn will not give the weight loss results that most dieters are looking to achieve. I have consulted with my primary care doctor and a registered dietician, and they both explained that in order to lose weight, you must burn more than you eat, and you need to burn 3500 per week just to lose 1 pound.

:flowerforyou: To each their own, but I will continue to focus on burning more than I consume, and listen to the medical advice that has been provided to me.


Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

I agree, doesn't make sense. One thing that nobody has been able to explain is what happens beyond the initial "burn". Assuming the HRM is accurate, which they're not there's definitely a swag, your body continues to burn calories at an increased rate for hours after you exercise. Nobody seems to account for that, so if accounting for that isn't important why is accounting for the initial burn so important?

Oh god. It really is simple.

Your calorie goal includes your deficit to achieve the weightloss you want. If you exercise, you increase the deficit. If you eat back to your calorie goal after exercise, the deficit is still there!

Beyond calories, your body needs the correct nutrition following exercise to repair and build. It's really, really, really not hard.

It's not that simple. If you setup a healthy calorie defiicit you don't need to GUESS at eating your calories back. I work with a very experienced nutritionist and he laughed at the idea of doing this. He trains all kinds of athletes, models, etc. I tend to believe his education and experience.

mantisnd

Ok I am going to put my 2 cents in on overstated calorie burns. Go spend the twenty bucks on a hr monitor. I personally don't like fitbit because I don't think it measures intensity of movement (for those that have it and it works great just my opinion). Not only do u need the monitor but to get an accurate count it needs to be checked often throughout your workout. Both as your hr increases and as you are coming back down. Most monitors calculate on the last reading (at least the cheap ones) so as your hr comes down your burn will slow. It is also important you take a reading when you first turn it on to "reset it" or else you will get the reading from the previos use. A hr monitor is the only accurate way to track your intensity and therefore the amount of calories burned short of vo2. Every workout is different. I may have burned 1000 calories in an intense 60 min workout yesterday. Doing the same 60 min workout tomorrow I may only burn 800. That could be 1400 calories in a week difference. HeartRate monitor people. Solves all the "estimate" problems. My friend doing that workout typically only burns 600. See the difference?

JNick77

I'm sure you'll find information on the internet that supports for or against HRM's. Here's an interesting one. Basically what I get from this article is that if you do any kind of serious lifting, HIIT, anything intense then they're about useless. If you go for a walk, WiFit, cleaning the house it's probably close.

So when it comes to estimating caloric expenditure, are these monitors really accurate? A recent study in the Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, titled "Validation of Heart Rate Monitor-Based Predictions of Oxygen Uptake and Energy Expenditure" asked this very same question.
Traditionally, energy expenditure (AKA caloric burn) is measured in a laboratory, via a test in which you breathe in and out of a mask while running on a treadmill or riding a bicycle. The accuracy of this test is well established, and is based on a direct correlation between oxygen consumed, carbon dioxide produced, and calories burnt.
But you obviously aren't breathing into a tiny hole in your heart rate monitor. Nor did it come equipped with a special mask for you to wear (note to Polar: please don't get any ideas). So how does the heart rate monitor calculate how many calories you've burnt?
Basically, special software built into the monitor is estimating your maximum oxygen consumption and energy expenditure via the length of time between each of your heart beats. I don't know the specifics of the actual equation used in this software, but I imagine it would likely take up a good portion of this blog post if I were to reproduce it.
In the study that I mentioned above, researchers used the "gold-standard" of measuring calories burnt (a calorimetry test used the mask) and compared it to the values the heart rate monitor was spitting out (in this case, a Suunto monitor). The results of the study showed that during both submaximal and maximal intensity treadmill running, the Suunto estimates of VO2 (maximum oxygen consumption) varied by about 6% when compared to traditional laboratory measurements.
But more significantly, there was substantial uncertainty in the calculation of calories burnt, with the Suunto system underestimating caloric utilization by about 13%. So if your heart rate monitor says you burnt 300 calories, it's possible that you actually burnt closer to 350 calories. And those measly 50 calories could be the difference between extra chocolate in your mocha, or not.
However, at very low intensities, like the type of intensity involved with the daily tasks of brushing your teeth, typing on your computer, or doing 12 oz curls with a Kokanee, the system was fairly accurate. And that's good news for those of us who obsessively wear out heart rate monitors to squeeze every extra ounce of data from the super-computer on our wrists.

Written by: Ben Greenfield - Ben holds bacheler's and master's degrees in exercise physiology and biomechanics, and is a certified personal trainer, strength and conditioning coach, sports nutritionist, and bike fitter.

ironanimal

This doesn't make any sense to me. If you want to lose weight, you have to burn more calories than you consume. That is the only way to do it. So eating back what you burn will not give the weight loss results that most dieters are looking to achieve. I have consulted with my primary care doctor and a registered dietician, and they both explained that in order to lose weight, you must burn more than you eat, and you need to burn 3500 per week just to lose 1 pound.

:flowerforyou: To each their own, but I will continue to focus on burning more than I consume, and listen to the medical advice that has been provided to me.


Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

I agree, doesn't make sense. One thing that nobody has been able to explain is what happens beyond the initial "burn". Assuming the HRM is accurate, which they're not there's definitely a swag, your body continues to burn calories at an increased rate for hours after you exercise. Nobody seems to account for that, so if accounting for that isn't important why is accounting for the initial burn so important?

Oh god. It really is simple.

Your calorie goal includes your deficit to achieve the weightloss you want. If you exercise, you increase the deficit. If you eat back to your calorie goal after exercise, the deficit is still there!

Beyond calories, your body needs the correct nutrition following exercise to repair and build. It's really, really, really not hard.

It's not that simple. If you setup a healthy calorie defiicit you don't need to GUESS at eating your calories back. I work with a very experienced nutritionist and he laughed at the idea of doing this. He trains all kinds of athletes, models, etc. I tend to believe his education and experience.

Yes, but a nutritionist tends to know a lot more about their clients than an internet webpage. MFP is set up this way because it assumes people won't count exercise in their activity level (which, yes, is very silly). I don't eat my exercise calories back - why? Because I don't log them. I'm using a regular deficit determined from my TDEE so there is no guesswork involved. If you use MFP how they expect you to however, you SHOULD eat your exercise calories back because the system tends to grossly underestimate what people need.

JNick77

This doesn't make any sense to me. If you want to lose weight, you have to burn more calories than you consume. That is the only way to do it. So eating back what you burn will not give the weight loss results that most dieters are looking to achieve. I have consulted with my primary care doctor and a registered dietician, and they both explained that in order to lose weight, you must burn more than you eat, and you need to burn 3500 per week just to lose 1 pound.

:flowerforyou: To each their own, but I will continue to focus on burning more than I consume, and listen to the medical advice that has been provided to me.


Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

I agree, doesn't make sense. One thing that nobody has been able to explain is what happens beyond the initial "burn". Assuming the HRM is accurate, which they're not there's definitely a swag, your body continues to burn calories at an increased rate for hours after you exercise. Nobody seems to account for that, so if accounting for that isn't important why is accounting for the initial burn so important?

Oh god. It really is simple.

Your calorie goal includes your deficit to achieve the weightloss you want. If you exercise, you increase the deficit. If you eat back to your calorie goal after exercise, the deficit is still there!

Beyond calories, your body needs the correct nutrition following exercise to repair and build. It's really, really, really not hard.

It's not that simple. If you setup a healthy calorie defiicit you don't need to GUESS at eating your calories back. I work with a very experienced nutritionist and he laughed at the idea of doing this. He trains all kinds of athletes, models, etc. I tend to believe his education and experience.

Yes, but a nutritionist tends to know a lot more about their clients than an internet webpage. MFP is set up this way because it assumes people won't count exercise in their activity level (which, yes, is very silly). I don't eat my exercise calories back - why? Because I don't log them. I'm using a regular deficit determined from my TDEE so there is no guesswork involved. If you use MFP how they expect you to however, you SHOULD eat your exercise calories back because the system tends to grossly underestimate what people need.

But you're relying on a semi-unreliable piece of equipment to judge what you should be eating back. Obviously MFP's calculations account for an initial "burn" but they don't account for the 'burn" that goes on for a few hours post-exercise. So people are judging their calories with what seems anywhere from a 6% to 13% range of error and no idea of what they're really burning afterwards. Seems to me that people would be better off taking MFP's calorie rec's, doing a custom calorie change of plus 5% to 10% depending on their activity level and then adjust the calories down every week or so after they get started or as they plateau.

ironanimal

But you're relying on a semi-unreliable piece of equipment to judge what you should be eating back. Obviously MFP's calculations account for an initial "burn" but they don't account for the 'burn" that goes on for a few hours post-exercise. So people are judging their calories with what seems anywhere from a 6% to 13% range of error and no idea of what they're really burning afterwards. Seems to me that people would be better off taking MFP's calorie rec's, doing a custom calorie change of plus 5% to 10% depending on their activity level and then adjust the calories down every week or so after they get started or as they plateau.

So we agree on something :P I think the whole system is flawed, but it's set up as it is so the uninformed can happily canter into weightloss without too much research. It's for this reason, if people specifically ask, I tell them to only eat back 75% of their exercise calories to account for discrepancies. In an ideal world, it would calculate your TDEE and deduct a percentage appropriate to the amount of FAT (read: not weight) you have to lose and tell you to GTFO if you want to make your calorie goals too (nutritionally speaking) low.

JNick77

But you're relying on a semi-unreliable piece of equipment to judge what you should be eating back. Obviously MFP's calculations account for an initial "burn" but they don't account for the 'burn" that goes on for a few hours post-exercise. So people are judging their calories with what seems anywhere from a 6% to 13% range of error and no idea of what they're really burning afterwards. Seems to me that people would be better off taking MFP's calorie rec's, doing a custom calorie change of plus 5% to 10% depending on their activity level and then adjust the calories down every week or so after they get started or as they plateau.

So we agree on something :P I think the whole system is flawed, but it's set up as it is so the uninformed can happily canter into weightloss without too much research. It's for this reason, if people specifically ask, I tell them to only eat back 75% of their exercise calories to account for discrepancies. In an ideal world, it would calculate your TDEE and deduct a percentage appropriate to the amount of FAT (read: not weight) you have to lose and tell you to GTFO if you want to make your calorie goals too (nutritionally speaking) low.

Agreed, definitely flawed. Unfortunately the information is out there and easily attainable, most just don't know what to look for. Sites like this should provide better information. The fact that you can only adjust your macros in 5% increments is a little frustrating too. LOL

wyangel

bump

Sarauk2sf

No one is saying not to do this - there is already a 500 cal baked in (or whatever your goal is) - so if you exercise and do not eat your calories back you are creating a bigger deficit than the 3500 per week.

This doesn't make any sense to me. If you want to lose weight, you have to burn more calories than you consume. That is the only way to do it. So eating back what you burn will not give the weight loss results that most dieters are looking to achieve. I have consulted with my primary care doctor and a registered dietician, and they both explained that in order to lose weight, you must burn more than you eat, and you need to burn 3500 per week just to lose 1 pound.

:flowerforyou: To each their own, but I will continue to focus on burning more than I consume, and listen to the medical advice that has been provided to me.


Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

mantisnd

I'm sure you'll find information on the internet that supports for or against HRM's. Here's an interesting one. Basically what I get from this article is that if you do any kind of serious lifting, HIIT, anything intense then they're about useless. If you go for a walk, WiFit, cleaning the house it's probably close.

So when it comes to estimating caloric expenditure, are these monitors really accurate? A recent study in the Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, titled "Validation of Heart Rate Monitor-Based Predictions of Oxygen Uptake and Energy Expenditure" asked this very same question.
Traditionally, energy expenditure (AKA caloric burn) is measured in a laboratory, via a test in which you breathe in and out of a mask while running on a treadmill or riding a bicycle. The accuracy of this test is well established, and is based on a direct correlation between oxygen consumed, carbon dioxide produced, and calories burnt.
But you obviously aren't breathing into a tiny hole in your heart rate monitor. Nor did it come equipped with a special mask for you to wear (note to Polar: please don't get any ideas). So how does the heart rate monitor calculate how many calories you've burnt?
Basically, special software built into the monitor is estimating your maximum oxygen consumption and energy expenditure via the length of time between each of your heart beats. I don't know the specifics of the actual equation used in this software, but I imagine it would likely take up a good portion of this blog post if I were to reproduce it.
In the study that I mentioned above, researchers used the "gold-standard" of measuring calories burnt (a calorimetry test used the mask) and compared it to the values the heart rate monitor was spitting out (in this case, a Suunto monitor). The results of the study showed that during both submaximal and maximal intensity treadmill running, the Suunto estimates of VO2 (maximum oxygen consumption) varied by about 6% when compared to traditional laboratory measurements.
But more significantly, there was substantial uncertainty in the calculation of calories burnt, with the Suunto system underestimating caloric utilization by about 13%. So if your heart rate monitor says you burnt 300 calories, it's possible that you actually burnt closer to 350 calories. And those measly 50 calories could be the difference between extra chocolate in your mocha, or not.
However, at very low intensities, like the type of intensity involved with the daily tasks of brushing your teeth, typing on your computer, or doing 12 oz curls with a Kokanee, the system was fairly accurate. And that's good news for those of us who obsessively wear out heart rate monitors to squeeze every extra ounce of data from the super-computer on our wrists.

Written by: Ben Greenfield - Ben holds bacheler's and master's degrees in exercise physiology and biomechanics, and is a certified personal trainer, strength and conditioning coach, sports nutritionist, and bike fitter.

My fitness at work is monitored by a phd in exercise physiology. We also get VO2 checked anually. HR is the only true way to tell the intensity of your workout with the exception of being hooked up to VO2 and then HR is still in the equation. The key is to check HR often so monitor can keep up. If you only check at beginning and every 30 min or so it won't be accurate. I check it any time there is a break, after warm up etc. In a 60 min workout i prob check it 20-25 times. Very close to my VO2. Just my opinion and what works for me. How do you calculate how many calories you burn in a workout if you don't rely on HR?

Green_Eye_Girl

Bump!!

EmeriaDewes

Bump

starbuds

Thanks so much. I just started today and was very confused when I saw the added calories. I actually did think it would be better not to eat them, so I had this very same question. Thanks for your explanation.

mantisnd

Nothing short of VO2 is going to be 100% accurate. I would rather burn 6% more calories than I am calculating than going with a standard off the internet. My wife is 5'2" and weighs 105. I am 6'2" and weigh 205. If we do the same workout for the same amount of time there is NO way we burn remotely the same calories even if we could match the same effort, intensity etc. What i was saying is a heart rate monitor is the most accurate piece of equipment you can get at a relatively cheap price to calculate your calories in a workout. For example I run for 4 miles at a 9 min pace. My wife does the same 4 miles at the same 9 min pace. my HR monitor says 800 ( just using easy numbers here for example, i don't run) her HR monitor says 400, and the internet or MFP or whatever says that disance and/or time should have burned 600. Entering our HR numbers into whatever calculator/counter (in this case MFP) you are using is going to give you a MUCH more accurate accounting than just entering 600 which would be way to low for me and way too high for her. I hope this explains my postion better.

Selma10001984

Thank you very much ) I needed this too ) Im gonna add you as a friend )

JNick77

How do you calculate how many calories you burn in a workout if you don't rely on HR?

I don't. I have an accurate calorie deficit setup and that's it.

mantisnd

That's great. But for me i need to know an accurate count of calories I burn in a workout. I don't trust a canned number. No two people/workouts are the same. MFP exercises i think are meant to be a guideline. Alot of people were complaining in the thread how MFP overestimates calories burned. For me it actually is too low on most exercises. Hence the HR monitor.

JNick77

That's great. But for me i need to know an accurate count of calories I burn in a workout. I don't trust a canned number. No two people/workouts are the same. MFP exercises i think are meant to be a guideline. Alot of people were complaining in the thread how MFP overestimates calories burned. For me it actually is too low on most exercises. Hence the HR monitor.

A canned number? I don't track exercise at all, not sure what you're talking about. I enter my food, that's it.

lnguyen578

I've been eating back my exercise calories this week and this morning my scale said I dropped 3 pounds... I think its lying to me because I've been on a really slow weight loss and this sudden drop is just weird (maybe its my sodium intake?). I'll continue on with it for the rest of the month and see my results. ^__^

LorinaLynn

I go by the estimates provided by MFP, the treadmill at the gym (when I'm stuck indoors), or Runkeeper. And using those estimates gave me the results I wanted, so they're accurate enough for me.

Trial and error. It's the most effective way to find what works for you.

stargazer424

Oh boy...by this I have been significantly under eating...

So by this line of thought, you should get as close to 0 calories remaining without going over?

I have been on MFP for about 6 weeks and I consistently have a lot of calories remaining. Sure some days I go over but at the end of the week I have on 2100 - 2500 calories remaining. I have already lost ~9 pounds and I'm not looking to lose too much. I have been eating healthier, but maybe I need MORE food (healthy food, of course)...

Edit: Time to get a snack...

LorinaLynn

So by this line of thought, you should get as close to 0 calories remaining without going over?

Yes, but going over is ok, too, since you'll still be in a calorie deficit.

Seanb_us

Right. Trial and error. I assume MFP overestimates the calories I burn on the elliptical. I assume MFP and I underestimate the calories I actually eat. So ... I try to leave some padding with those assumptions in mind.

I don't have a HRM. I don't fancy having to strap that stuff across my very sweaty chest when I go to workout ... I just want to work out.

I don't weigh my food. I estimate based on container size or whatnot.

MFP has me on a 1200 per day calorie intake. That's about 800 under my maintenance intake. If I exercise, I never go over and I eat back some of my calories, but never all (I aim for 33-50%). On days I do not work out, I always go over my 1200, by 3-400. I figure I'm still doing okay with that.

So, trial and error.

mantisnd

you can get one that goes on your wrist.

Seanb_us

you can get one that goes on your wrist.

I know and read on here they are not that accurate. Should I really bother with it? The elliptical at the gym asks my age, weight and takes my heartrate. Is a wrist HRM going to be much different?

Cheers,

Sean