We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Ditch the exercise calorie model?
sarahz5
Posts: 1,363 Member
To quote you on the exercise cal thread SS: "My general opinion is that it's much simpler and uses less guess-work to use a custom intake and just forget about the exercise calorie model entirely, but that's a different topic of sorts." So please do the different topic. 
I would LOVE to hear the two of you talk about whether there is a real advantage to using a goal that incorporates your general activity level including exercise versus using a baseline that excludes exercise and then adding it in as you go. Or, a third option, whether the calorie intake per day should be adapted to your work out on that day or the next.
Personally, I find it motivating to "earn" more calories through exercise. I love exercise for its own sake and would still do it, it's just a little added bonus. However, if there were a good reason for me to take a different approach - which it seems there probably is since so many of the most informed MFPers do - I would have no problem adopting it. My concern is that my job is very variable, I can have weeks where I work 70 hours and can't work out, and weeks when I manage to work out or otherwise play 6-7 days a week. My exercise calorie expenditure per week over the past four months have varied from nada to around 3000 calories.
I'm not asking for a personal recommendation, but rather your thoughts in general. Thanks!
I would LOVE to hear the two of you talk about whether there is a real advantage to using a goal that incorporates your general activity level including exercise versus using a baseline that excludes exercise and then adding it in as you go. Or, a third option, whether the calorie intake per day should be adapted to your work out on that day or the next.
Personally, I find it motivating to "earn" more calories through exercise. I love exercise for its own sake and would still do it, it's just a little added bonus. However, if there were a good reason for me to take a different approach - which it seems there probably is since so many of the most informed MFPers do - I would have no problem adopting it. My concern is that my job is very variable, I can have weeks where I work 70 hours and can't work out, and weeks when I manage to work out or otherwise play 6-7 days a week. My exercise calorie expenditure per week over the past four months have varied from nada to around 3000 calories.
I'm not asking for a personal recommendation, but rather your thoughts in general. Thanks!
0
Replies
-
I'll eventually post a topic about it but some initial thoughts are as follows:
1) Until you get very lean, there's no real physiological benefit to eating at a cyclical intake (higher intake on training days vs rest days). There is a fair amount of theory and speculation as to it being beneficial but this really isn't going to apply to the majority and the benefits are quite anecdotal.
2) Exercise calories are often over-stated.
3) A static-intake method can be simpler for many people. It's just easier to know that you eat X daily and that, given a remotely consistent exercise schedule, you're going to land in a reasonable spot over time by keeping things consistent.
All that being said, this is something entirely preferential. Over time, if your intake averages out to a "reasonable" target for your goals, you're going to make progress whether it's a cyclical or steady intake.0 -
I would also point to the natural reduction in RMR in response to a deficit and exercise. As time goes on, you body essentially begins to partially fuel you exercise by burning fewer calories during other times of the day.
The easiest way to detect and combat this is to have a consistent intake, and decrease cals and/or increase activity when you hit a plateau (assuming a full diet break isn't needed).0 -
My thoughts are:
Ultimately, assuming accurate 'calorie burns' you end up at the same place at the end of the week. There is no real benefit from calorie cycling from a weight loss perspective for the majority of people. However, depending on how it impacts adherence and gym performance, it may well be beneficial.
Some people like a static number as it helps plan the day better. Others, including myself, prefer to vary their intake. I vary mine so I can eat more for lifting days as I need more energy. I also like it as I can have some 'big eats' days and have cheesecake on top of my daily ice-cream and still hit my macros.
The pro's and con's of the 'eating your exercise calories back' model are mainly that it may be motivational as well as giving you more energy however, the calorie burns can easily be overestimated.
The pro's and con's as I see them of eating to a static number is that it is easier to plan but you do not have the added 'fuel' for workouts - this may or may not be a big deal - it is a personal thing as to how much it impacts your performance.
Personally, I prefer the third option, which is basically the cyclical approach - but that is purely for performance and adherence purposes, and has nothing to do with weight loss.0 -
Thanks for the input! I guess I should take the not broken / don't fix it approach for now, but moving to a static number might be a smart switch if I plateau, whether with weight loss or strength training or running progress.0
-
Thanks for the input! I guess I should take the not broken / don't fix it approach for now, but moving to a static number might be a smart switch if I plateau, whether with weight loss or strength training or running progress.
You're totally fine doing what you're doing if you enjoy it and it's working for you. My point wasn't to say that the exercise calorie model is a bad one or arbitrarily detrimental, I just find that it has the potential to create confusion.0 -
I would also point to the natural reduction in RMR in response to a deficit and exercise. As time goes on, you body essentially begins to partially fuel you exercise by burning fewer calories during other times of the day.
The easiest way to detect and combat this is to have a consistent intake, and decrease cals and/or increase activity when you hit a plateau (assuming a full diet break isn't needed).
Fire_Rock, would you still say this applies if the dailydeficit is a small one? eg 250 to 300 calories per day?0 -
I would also suggest that if your activity level varies enormously (cyclists, runners, hikers) and you do long burn sessions such as multi-hour trekking or cycling the static model will be more difficult to use. However, in the case of these long activities make sure you subtract 10-15% from you exercise calories as this baseline burn is already included in your standard TDEE on MFP. It is one of the reasons that exercise calories are over-calculated.0
-
I would also suggest that if your activity level varies enormously (cyclists, runners, hikers) and you do long burn sessions such as multi-hour trekking or cycling the static model will be more difficult to use. However, in the case of these long activities make sure you subtract 10-15% from you exercise calories as this baseline burn is already included in your standard TDEE on MFP. It is one of the reasons that exercise calories are over-calculated.
Good point, you can also make the case that in situations like the above, it may make more sense to increase intake on training days vs rest days since the difference in energy needs could theoretically be quite significant. For your average gym rat I doubt this is the case.0 -
After more than a year and a half of eating at the MFP model with exercise calories, I made the switch to a TDEE approach and haven't looked back.
What I love about it is that it eliminates any stupid stress I might feel to stay under on lower activity days. With MFP numbers, I'd have about 1800 on rest days, then 2600 after a long run. But long runs tend to kill my appetite, and I'd be starving the next day. Even though I rationally know it's ok to go over or under, I'd still have some desire to stay under.
Now, I'm aiming for 2300, which is maintenance for a few pounds less than I weigh now, so I'm very, very, very slowly losing. Sometimes I eat a little more, sometimes a little less. I don't log at all on weekends, where I probably make up for any deficit I have during the week. And it just makes eating and planning my meals easier and more enjoyable.0 -
I would also suggest that if your activity level varies enormously (cyclists, runners, hikers) and you do long burn sessions such as multi-hour trekking or cycling the static model will be more difficult to use. However, in the case of these long activities make sure you subtract 10-15% from you exercise calories as this baseline burn is already included in your standard TDEE on MFP. It is one of the reasons that exercise calories are over-calculated.
This is exactly what I came here to say. The static model doesn't work for me with the amount I run, and the huge calorie differential between a long run day and a 'maintenance' run day. That said though, I'm more in favor of smoothing the calories out over about a week, if you prefer, so you don't have to stuff your face on a long run day if you don't want to. I actually don't think it's complicated at all, but I've been doing it a while.0 -
what a nice, pleasant, and knowledgable way to have this discussion. I am so grateful y'all are doing this now... This was one of those topics that I just simply could not understand or figure out "what worked for me" because my workouts are also not always so typical or consistant calorie burn wise... Finally found my happy place as well, just wanted to chime in a huge thanks to this group. SS and Sara; thanks so much for starting this. Really really appreciate you two (and all others that can help!)
:flowerforyou:0
This discussion has been closed.