Eating exercise calories - an interesting discrepancy

sassyg

ETA: I'm not looking to eat 1200 calories a day, either way, I've just noticed the discrepancy and was hoping someone knowledgable could explain. I get the theory, thanks.



I get the general theory on this, and it makes perfect sense to me, but I am confused/questioning ONE thing:

*If I set my activity level to "sedentary", and my target as 2lb/week, I get 1200 calories, then I earn more for the exercise I do, which I am then supposed to eat, so that I don't net under 1200.
HOWEVER If I set my activity to "active" and don't log my exercise, to lose 2lb/week I'm also given 1200

Two different ways of inputting my daily activities, gives me VASTLY different calorie goals and implications: for the former I'm being told I must eat 1200 and also the exercise calories (~1500), for the latter I'm just eating 1200 and that's fine?!? For the same weight, target and overall level of exercise.

My job involves a lot of walking, It can be 300 calories or more in a day, so its a significant amount (as you would expect by the consideration of it being considered otherwise "active" daily activity).





Now, as it happens, I'm only aiming for 1lb a week, but the issue still applies to some small degree, as to whether I log my exercise and be sedentary, or just be "active"... The discrepancy is smaller that that level, however, so I generally just aim for thereabouts and it seems to work OK




Can someone explain this?

questionablemethods

Couldn't this be due to how many calories you are even able to burn in a day without taking exercise into account?

For example, if am sedentary and I burn 1500 through daily activity, I can go ahead and say that I want to lose 2lb/week and MFP will give me 1200 calories, which, of course, isn't going to give me the 7000 calorie/week deficit I would need to lose 2lb/week, but MFP won't recommend lower than 1200.

But then if I select "active", I might burn 2200/day, not including exercise. MFP would still recommend 1200/day to lose 2lb/week, only this time there actually would be a 1000 calorie/day deficit.

aandmson

The general principal of this diet plan is what I call the ATM diet -- Calories in - Calories out. One pound is roughly 3,500 calories. To lose weight (e.g. 2 pounds per week) you need to run a caloric deficit of approximately 7,000 calories. All this website does is calculate the calories in and calories out. Calories in is simple, just the total amount of food and drink in take during the course of the day. The calories out is a calculation of your basal metabolic rate (the amount of calories you burn just to keep your vital life functions, such as your heart beating), your average activity level (whether you are active), and exercise.

To lose 2 pounds per week, you need to run a deficit of approximately 1,000 calories per day. Based on your BMR and activity level, you probably require a caloric intake of 2,200 calories to maintain an equilibrium (calories in = calories out), assuming no exercise. Thus, the 1,200 calories per day food calories allotted for a goal of 2 pounds per week. When you add exercise to the equation, you see that you can "eat" your exercise calories and still be on target to lose 2 pounds per week.

This is the only method that actually works for weight loss and ALL diets are some version of manipulating this equation (either the calories in, calories out, or some combination of both. The biggest advantage of this program is the ability to track your caloric intake -- many people far underestimate the amount of calories they consume in a day (usually by not adjusting the serving size to what was actually consumed -- the American serving is much larger than what it should be, another reason we are so fat).

Good luck with the program!

tcac

I am telling you this whole calories is driving me crazy. MFP will not even calculate my goals to lose 2lbs. a week. So if I eat 1200 cal. they give me a low number I will be at in 5weeks. Then the next day if I eat a little over and use some of my exercise calories, they bump me up about 5 lbs heavier in same amount of time. I get so overwhelmed I do not even know what to do. Then try to get the sugar and sodium down and I am crazy. I am a vegetarian, so I eat yogurt and fruit. I do not use any artificial sweetners so that means I eat regular yogurt and then my sugar goes crazy. I really become afraid to eat .

sassyg

Oh yeah sor sure, I get that it doesn't go below 1200, and for good reason.

But it still seems odd that choosing your total daily expenditure in two different ways, gives different overall totals.

AND, if one must eat the 1200 minimum, PLUS their exercise calories as the theory says, then isn't it incorrect for the program to pit it 1200 as an acceptable goal for an "active" person - I mean, they're essentially eating their minimum 1200 but NOT their exercise! 300 calories of walking around is 300 calories of exercise, regardless of whether I do it throughout the day and be "active" or whether I sit on my *kitten* for all but an hour's walk... does anyone get what I mean?

And if that's not incorrect, then it's saying that it's OK to a point to eat your 1200 and not worry about eating exercise calories.



I mean, I get the idea, but the situation is presenting 2 different things, and it makes me wonder what is what...

tcac

Yes I agree and should you eat the exercise calories every day or every couple of days.

spaul82478

I am telling you this whole calories is driving me crazy. MFP will not even calculate my goals to lose 2lbs. a week. So if I eat 1200 cal. they give me a low number I will be at in 5weeks. Then the next day if I eat a little over and use some of my exercise calories, they bump me up about 5 lbs heavier in same amount of time. I get so overwhelmed I do not even know what to do. Then try to get the sugar and sodium down and I am crazy. I am a vegetarian, so I eat yogurt and fruit. I do not use any artificial sweetners so that means I eat regular yogurt and then my sugar goes crazy. I really become afraid to eat .

They do that depending on how much "fat" you also go over, its not only the amount of cals.. the sugar from yoguart is from many things, the type, say fresh fruit, has more sugar, if your worried about that..i eat the carb control. it has ony 2 sugar and 4 carbs..as long as you log faithfully, stay at your cals, eat enough protein (i know its hard with being a vegetarian) but eating the important supplements you need is key.. that and exersize.. no one is perfect so just keep going and dont' get discourage... GOOD LUCK

somigliana

I reckon it's probably because 1200cals is the minimum target that MFP will ever give you.
If you go and look at your goals page carefully and find your actual deficit set, you'll probably see that one or both of them don't give you the full 1000 calorie deficit you asked for.

e.g. Just for a thumbsuck example, say for "sedentary" your maintenance level is 1800 and for "active" it is 2000cal.
2lbs a week is a 1000cal deficit so:
1800-1000 = 800cal BUT MFP will only allow a 1200cal min, so your ACTUAL deficit set is 600cal even though you asked for a 1000cal deficit.
For the active category 2000-1000 = 1000cal. MFP will STILL give you a target of 1200cal min with an actual deficit of 800cal.

Hope that makes sense.

sassyg

I'm not meaning this in direct relation to a "what do I do?" I get the theory already, thanks!


For one as I already said I'm only doing 1lb/week, and for another 1200 a day is just so completely ridiculous for me that I don't even entertain the notion. I'm on 1700-something for 1lb/week


it's a hypothetical situation, that I noticed is quite contradictory.

sassyg

I reckon it's probably because 1200cals is the minimum target that MFP will ever give you.
If you go and look at your goals page carefully and find your actual deficit set, you'll probably see that one or both of them don't give you the full 1000 calorie deficit you asked for.

e.g. Just for a thumbsuck example, say for "sedentary" your maintenance level is 1800 and for "active" it is 2000cal.
2lbs a week is a 1000cal deficit so:
1800-1000 = 800cal BUT MFP will only allow a 1200cal min, so your ACTUAL deficit set is 600cal even though you asked for a 1000cal deficit.
For the active category 2000-1000 = 1000cal. MFP will STILL give you a target of 1200cal min with an actual deficit of 800cal.

Hope that makes sense.

Yeah, and I think that's where the issue lies, in this minimum...


I don't think I'm explainging myself fully here...

If I were to choose 2lb/week (which I don't and won't, it's just something I've noticed) and be sedentary, I get 1200 a day. Fine, there's a minimum and it cuts off, cool. BUT the "eat your exercise" theory says i must then eat another 300 calories for the exercise i do daily. OK cool. Total: 1500
BUT
Choose 2lb/week, with alllll other things being equal, but just say you're active and NOT log that 300 calories of exercise because it's under the "active" umbrella, one get 1200. Total. And that's "OK"

SO, why, would it not be ok to not eat that extra 300 in the first example? To not is exactly the same as the second in the end...
The 'starvation mode' theory would say that the former situation to not eat those extra 300 would end up a person in starvation mode, for netting too few calories, but can anyone see how both situations would be exactly the same: same daily expenditure, same intake. if not eating the exercise in the first example risks starvation mode, then so, in theory, does the second example, as they work out to be the same net.

Plenty of people would say to do the first and not eat the exercise would be the wrong way to go, but not that the second is the wrong way.

So?

somigliana

I don't think I'm explainging myself fully here...

If I were to choose 2lb/week (which I don't and won't, it's just something I've noticed) and be sedentary, I get 1200 a day. Fine, there's a minimum and it cuts off, cool. BUT the "eat your exercise" theory says i must then eat another 300 calories for the exercise i do daily. OK cool. Total: 1500
BUT
Choose 2lb/week, with alllll other things being equal, but just say you're active and NOT log that 300 calories of exercise because it's under the "active" umbrella, one get 1200. Total. And that's "OK"

SO, why, would it not be ok to not eat that extra 300 in the first example? It's exactly the same as the second in the end...

Ahhh, gotcha.
Yeah, I see how that is confusing... you had me scratching my head for a moment there.
I /think/ the way some people see it is that the "active" lifestyle still doesn't include your regular exercise workouts; it's an indication of how active you are in your day-to-day job or life, yeah? I reckon a nurse would be a lot more active than me (who is currently sitting in a comfy office chair) on her daily shift.
I could be wrong, though.

ETA: So you could be "active" and still log "official", deliberate exercise and eat the exercise calories if you looked at it that way.
But yeah, I read it again and I see what you mean about the 300 calories.
I think, in the end, what it comes down to is that the two scenarios, although giving you the 1200 target, are not giving you the same calorie deficit target, so it's like comparing apples with oranges, you know?

sassyg

mmmmmm, I guess, I'm looking at is as exercise is exercise (just don't count it twice!) and total in and total out...

I guess one way of thinking of it is: would you call a person who walks 10 minutes a day to work, and 10 minutes a day home, and goes for 2 other walks a day (say 15 minutes total) to get a morning coffee and lunch, but otherwise sits at a desk:
*lightly active (35 minutes moderate walking)
OR
*sedentary with 35 minutes exercise?

And, do they eat that exercise, or not?

That's not what I do, but it's a similar situation (but about 3-4x the amount of walking!) but I'm walking, sitting, walking, sitting, carrying, packing, walking, lifting, sitting, packing, sitting..... all day

Junisahn

I was getting all bogged down in this too, and then I figured - I'll stay at sedentary, log my "loggable" activity (walks, jogs, bike rides, gardening, yoga), and then anything else on top of that (cleaning, laundry, cooking, shopping - all the things that go along with being a stay at home mom) is just gravy. Or, in the case of burning calories, I guess it's anti-gravy.