The math error with eating calories back

quackers82

I always thought that the MFP app gave you net calories not gross? If i do a 35 min walk at 3.5mph (6ft3, male,30, 192lbs) MFP says i burned 193 calories, if i pop those same stats into online walking calorie calculators it comes up more like 230/240 calories. So i am guessing MFP is net and online calculators unless they state it is gross.

coyoteo

This is the first app I have used that doesn't calculate that. I keep assuming at some point they will fix that...

glitterfest85

.

glitterfest85

So, let's say you normally burn 2400 calories. That's 100 calories an hour doing nothing, right? So you exercise for one hour for 400 calories... and you eat back those 400 calories. You ate 100 extra calories, that you would have burned anyway even if you were not exercising.

So... I'm guessing MFP isn't right when just adding exercise calories to your goal...

Perhaps if you burn 400 calories on an elliptical, you have really burned 500 when you factor in your bodily functions? The 400 is perhaps layered on top of your regular calorie burn? If that makes sense...that was my first thought when I read this thread

lilawolf

I lost weight just as I expected eating all of my cals back, but then again I said I was sedentary and I do try to get up every hour at least for a quick walk for water/coffee/ talk to a coworker/bathroom whatever. As people said, calories, even on packaged items is off, TDEE is off, and exercise cals are off. I didn't use a food scale, an HRM, or any other fancy gadgets and it worked for me. Just log everything, write your average cals, macros, and weight loss in your sunday food notes every week, and adjust from there. You will see a trend of what works and what doesn't.

omma_to_3

MFP didn't create the database, but they created the program that adds all your exercise calories to your daily calories. IMO they should have accounted for our TDEE in there. IMO letting people believe that it's ok to eat all your calories back and still lose whatever your goal is, is inaccurate.

I still think they did take that into account. And wow, wouldn't it be nice to have a BMR that was 100 calories an hour. Ah...the food I could eat!

Anyway, if you really want to know if it's accounted for, ask tech support.

CollegiateGrief

Exactly! This website calculates your gross calorie burn, explains the difference between gross and net calories burned, and then calculates your net calories burned. The only way to eat back exercise calories and be sure you're not going to over do it.

http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/heart-rate-based-calorie-burn-calculator.aspx

JHarr454

I'm pretty sure your BMR is the calories it takes to be alive. Let's say 100 an hour. When you run for an hour, the 500 calories burned is on top of the 100 because in addition to being alive, you had to transport your mass 4 miles, which required an extra 500 calories of energy. It's physics.

tequila09

i usually use an hrm when i do cardio and i just subtract 100 calories from it before logging it on here.

prudism

So, let's say you normally burn 2400 calories. That's 100 calories an hour doing nothing, right? So you exercise for one hour for 400 calories... and you eat back those 400 calories. You ate 100 extra calories, that you would have burned anyway even if you were not exercising.

So... I'm guessing MFP isn't right when just adding exercise calories to your goal...

None of this is going to be spot on. Just like the estimation of calorie intake isn't 100% accurate, the estimation of calories burned isn't 100% accurate, your estimated tdee isn't 100% accurate. There's a margin of error in the whole process. It's just meant to be a guideline, a starting point. If you find that eating back every last calorie burned isn't working that well then you need to adjust. One hundred years ago or so people didn't have these kind of tools to lose weight - HRM's, calorie tracking websites, pedometers, and other techy gadgets- they still lost weight. Eat less, move more, use commonsense and don't take things so literally.

Precisely

SmartAlec03211988

That would explain why I haven't lost 80 lbs eating my calories back. DAMN IT!!!!

drefaw

The proof will be in the weight loss.

I do eat back many of the calories I "earn" from exercising. I am on a 1700 calorie a day net budget targetted at a 2 pound per week loss. If I eat a 300 calorie breakfast and a 300 calorie lunch, that would leave me 1100 calories for dinner. I like to have some wine with dinner. I know that the only way I can do that and still have a satisfying dinner is to earn some extra calories during the day. That really gives me motivation to get to the gym or walk the dog.

But the proof is that I have been losing pretty consistenly the 2 pounds a week I am aiming for I have been pretty much spot on in my net calories each day, Often I have a few left over and only occassionally do I go over.


Where's the LIKE button ...LOL ........

this is my way of doing it also, and it is working for me most awesomely !!
So how is it working for you? If you are eating those extra calories and still meeting your targetted weight loss, the system is working for you.

staplebug

Well...if you strength train, your after burn can be about an extra 100 calories a day for the next 3 days. I know this doesn't take into account cardio, but just a thought.

BioMechHeretic

This thread hurts my head, and hurts math.

Example BMR = burning 2500 cals per day. So on a non exercise day eat 1500 cals per day to lose 2 lbs per week(generally) (Because 1000 deficit per day is 7000/week, 3500 per pound of fat)

Exercise one day and burn 500 cals. Now to eat them back your total for the day is 2000 cals. (2500 +500=3000-1000=2000)

It is very straightforward. You take your BMR and if exercising add the cals burned for the absolute total for the day. Now subtract the amount per day(1000 per day for a 2lb/week loss) so you are eating at a deficit.

That's all there is to it.

wareagle8706

So, let's say you normally burn 2400 calories. That's 100 calories an hour doing nothing, right? So you exercise for one hour for 400 calories... and you eat back those 400 calories. You ate 100 extra calories, that you would have burned anyway even if you were not exercising.

So... I'm guessing MFP isn't right when just adding exercise calories to your goal...

You didn't tell me how many calories I'm taking in before factoring in eating exercise calories.

If I burn 2400 in a day + the 400 from the exercise and then eat that many calories (2800 = 2400 + 400). I come out completely even so.... I don't get what you're trying to say.

Terpnista84

You eat them back because you are already in a deficit.

MFP has me at a 1,200 calorie goal. If I did not work out, I would be at a deficit to lose weight.

If I add an activity that burns 300 calories, and I still eat 1,200 calories that would mean only 900 calories are available for my body to use for fuel which is not enough. That is why you are supposed to eat back your exercise calories. Also, exercise boosts your metabolism so even if you eat back all the calories, your metabolism will be helping you to burn more after the fact.

TriShamelessly

I don't see the point fo "eating back" the calories you burned doing exercise. Isn't the point to lose weight? and from what I understand the way to lose weight is to decrease the input and increase the output. If you are "eating back" the calories burned aren't you defeating the purpose of exercising?

Opinions vary greatly on this question. To me, it depends on how much I exercise - which for the last couple of months - has increased dramatically. If I didn't eat back some of the calories, I would be hungry and miserable - not the mindset I want to have. Your body also needs fuel to exercise in addition to the base needs measured by TDEE. To each their own and do what works best for you.

Bufta217

I don't know if there is an error with MFPs calories.

I totally agree with the 'nothing is 100% accurate' post.

I use an HRM, and always deduct my background calories (i.e. those calories I would have burned had I not been excercising).

Background calories are calculated by dividing your BMR by 24 hours and then 60 minutes..

So mine is: 1440 / 24 / 60 = 1

Luckily for me, 1 is a very convenient round number, and it means that if I do 67 mins of excercise I deduct 67 calories from the total cound given to me by my HRM.

I like this method because I am a geek and like the numbers. I'd imagine that the 'only eat 75% back' works just as well.

Relax :flowerforyou:

wikitbikit

When I was here before, I worried about the same things.

"How can I do this most effectively if I don't have a better grasp on how accurate everything is? I have a thyroid condition, my metabolism is slow, I'm not like other people! Every time I put my numbers in a calculator on a different site, I get a different result! AUGH!"

So I did some research, discovered the BodyMedia Fit, decided I liked its published accuracy and felt it was an investment worth making. I lost over 30 pounds with almost no effort.

(I then got bored with being dedicated and rediscovered a love for ice cream. Delicious months ensued, but at a price).

So this time around, I have the BMF and it's all working smooth, and I find that when I run my numbers through calculators--they still aren't all the same--the averages are pretty close to what my BMF comes up with. Being hypothyroid? Doesn't matter (I'm medicated). I am, in fact, pretty much exactly like other people. (What a blow that was, lol).

I still sometimes find myself trying to micromanage, which is why I commented above that I needed to reread lizziebeth's post over and over again.

Maybe getting something like the BMF (or a FitBit, or another brand, there are several) would be of benefit to you, so you can feel more comfortable with the accuracy. Otherwise I think you'll just need to let go a little, accept that the numbers are a little fuzzy, and concentrate on moving more and eating less (in terms of energy/calories, not necessarily volume, of course).

Best of luck to you

gracielynn1011

I just read an article about Gross VS Net Calories burned. I wish I had saved the link. The author said basically the same thing. He said that for each workout that you burn 300 calories (or whatever amount), that approximately 20% of those calories would have been burned just sitting on the couch. So the amount you burn for the workout is the Gross, the amount - 20% is the net. He recommended only eating back the Net amount (if any).

So if I eat back any of my exercise calories, I figure up what my calorie burn is, and then only do 50-70% of that back.